Skip to content

Wisconsin man who collected Ryan Braun’s urine sample issues statement “to set the record straight”

Feb 28, 2012, 3:05 PM EDT


Dino Laurenzi, the Wisconsin man who was in charge of Ryan Braun‘s urine sample, issued the following lengthy statement following the overturning of Braun’s suspension:

On February 24th, Ryan Braun stated during his press conference that “there were a lot of things that we learned about the collector, about the collection process, about the way that the entire thing worked that made us very concerned and very suspicious about what could have actually happened.” Shortly thereafter, someone who had intimate knowledge of the facts of this case released my name to the media. I am issuing this statement to set the record straight.

I am a 1983 graduate of the University of Wisconsin and have received Master Degrees from the University of North Carolina and Loyola University of Chicago. My full-time job is the director of rehabilitation services at a health care facility. In the past, I have worked as a teacher and an athletic trainer, including performing volunteer work with Olympic athletes. I am a member of both the National Athletic Trainers’ Association and the Wisconsin Athletic Trainers’ Association.

I have been a drug collector for Comprehensive Drug Testing since 2005 and have been performing collections for Major League Baseball’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program since that time. I have performed over 600 collections for MLB and also have performed collections for other professional sports leagues. I have performed post-season collections for MLB in four separate seasons involving five different clubs.

On October 1, 2011, I collected samples from Mr. Braun and two other players. The CDT collection team for that day, in addition to me, included three chaperones and a CDT coordinator. One of the chaperones was my son, Anthony. Chaperones do not have any role in the actual collection process, but rather escort the player to the collection area.

I followed the same procedure in collecting Mr. Braun’s sample as I did in the hundreds of other samples I collected under the Program. I sealed the bottles containing Mr. Braun’s A and B samples with specially-numbered, tamper-resistant seals, and Mr. Braun signed a form certifying, among other things, that the specimens were capped and sealed in his presence and that the specimen identification numbers on the top of the form matched those on the seals.

I placed the two bottles containing Mr. Braun’s samples in a plastic bag and sealed the bag. I then placed the sealed bag in a standard cardboard Specimen Box which I also sealed with a tamper-resistant, correspondingly-numbered seal placed over the box opening. I then placed Mr. Braun’s Specimen Box, and the Specimen Boxes containing the samples of the two other players, in a Federal Express Clinic Pack. None of the sealed Specimen Boxes identified the players. I completed my collections at Miller Park at approximately 5:00 p.m. Given the lateness of the hour that I completed my collections, there was no FedEx office located within 50 miles of Miller Park that would ship packages that day or Sunday.

Therefore, the earliest that the specimens could be shipped was Monday, October 3. In that circumstance, CDT has instructed collectors since I began in 2005 that they should safeguard the samples in their homes until FedEx is able to immediately ship the sample to the laboratory, rather than having the samples sit for one day or more at a local FedEx office. The protocol has been in place since 2005 when I started with CDT and there have been other occasions when I have had to store samples in my home for at least one day, all without incident.

The FedEx Clinic Pack containing Mr. Braun’s samples never left my custody. Consistent with CDT’s instructions, I brought the FedEx Clinic Pack containing the samples to my home. Immediately upon arriving home, I placed the FedEx Clinic Pack in a Rubbermaid container in my office which is located in my basement. My basement office is sufficiently cool to store urine samples. No one other than my wife was in my home during the period in which the samples were stored. The sealed Specimen Boxes were not removed from the FedEx Clinic Pack during the entire period in which they were in my home. On Monday, October 3, I delivered the FedEx Clinic Pack containing Mr. Braun’s Specimen Box to a FedEx office for delivery to the laboratory on Tuesday, October 4. At no point did I tamper in any way with the samples. It is my understanding that the samples were received at the laboratory with all tamper-resistant seals intact.

This situation has caused great emotional distress for me and my family. I have worked hard my entire life, have performed my job duties with integrity and professionalism, and have done so with respect to this matter and all other collections in which I have participated. Neither I nor members of my family will make any further public comments on this matter. I request that members of the media, and baseball fans, whatever their views on this matter, respect our privacy. And I would like to sincerely thank my family and friends for their overwhelming support through this difficult time. Any future inquiries should be directed to my attorney Boyd Johnson of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

171 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. ningenito78 - Feb 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

    Cur68- you are absolutely right in everything you said. Speaking for myself, my reaction stems from this very website claiming we can’t claim Braun got off on a technicality. Then the more I read about the case the more it just seemed to me there’s a whole hell of a lot of questions pertaining to Braun’s test than answers. And the fact that his defense (allegedly) never disputed the positive test. I just think Braun comes off as a dousche considering the bottom line is he pissed hot. Period. He should just shut up and go away. He’s just a lucky SOB. Not vindicated.

    • saints97 - Feb 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

      Pissed hot. I like that characterization.

      • comeonnowguys - Feb 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM

        And yet someone thumbed you down. Always one guy in every group.

      • saints97 - Feb 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

        Brewers fan, no doubt.

  2. muskyhunter2542 - Feb 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

    Guilty… Hes a sCrUBS fan!!!

    • comeonnowguys - Feb 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

      It’s almost rush hour…. don’t you have a bridge to be under?

      • muskyhunter2542 - Feb 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

        Im lost as to where you are going with this…

  3. alldonesmith - Feb 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM

    Legal issues are usually extremely complicated, and chain-of-custody issues are no exception. As a lawyer, I would just like to add to the debate a short explanation of why chain-of-custody rules exist.

    Clearly, the idea is to prevent the evidence from being tampered with or degrading. The reason chain-of-custody issues are so important in criminal cases (like all other issues therein) is that the potential price of assuming the evidence is untainted even when the chain is broken is the wrongful conviction of an innocent man or woman, and that person’s incarceration and loss of freedom. In plain English, if they get it wrong you go to jail. That’s a huge deal.

    In civil cases, the burden of proof is much lower: all you need is a preponderance (simple majority, ie 51%) of the evidence to find in favor of one party or another. That’s because the potential price of being wrong isn’t incarceration, it’s money. Money that can be replaced. Although it sucks when the jury finds for the wrong party, that’s the reality of human existence: we’re not perfect, and sometimes we get things wrong. That doesn’t mean we don’t try. And as an attorney, the collection procedure described in this statement sounds entirely reasonable to me in any context outside criminal prosecution.

    This case is clearly MUCH more similar to a civil case than a criminal case. In fact, the penalty for being wrong is even LOWER than your average civil case because most civil judgments completely wipe out the losing party’s savings. Even if the 50 game suspension hurt Braun’s marketing potential, the dude is obscenely rich and honestly I feel less than zero sympathy for him in that regard. So basically, the chain-of-custody controversy comes down to this: who do you believe? Because whoever you believe clearly has at least 51% of your confidence, and that’s good enough for a court of law.

    Personally, while following this story I was extremely skeptical of pretty much everything Braun had to say. I really didn’t find him believable. And after reading this account from the sample collector, I’m even more confident that Braun got away with one. Further, as others have said, even if the sample degraded (which they would have found immediately upon testing it) there is absolutely no way synthetic testosterone could have been created by that degradation. So either you believe that this guy (or his wife, el oh el) for some strange and unknown motive broke all the seals, contaminated the samples and managed to re-seal them with new materials bearing the same serial number, or you believe that Braun’s pee had the testosterone in it even before it left his body and he’s doing and saying everything he can to avoid the consequences. I know which sounds a heck of a lot more likely to me.

    People who are saying Braun was “exonerated” by the arbitrator’s ruling (including Aaron Rodgers) are completely wrong. Exonerated means that you PROVED the accusations were false. For example, Braun could have been exonerated if his “B” sample showed no banned substances. In this case, the decision was not based on the results of the test – it was based on a supposed procedural defect. A much more accurate characterization would be that the charges were not sustained. But that doesn’t make Braun sound very innocent, does it? So his apologists are using a much stronger word purely for the PR of it. Which to me is an insult to the public’s intelligence.

    PS – the MLB really needs to find the people leaking confidential information and fire (or if they can’t, punish) them. The fact that this poor guy’s name came out and he got dragged through the mud by Braun and his camp (which makes him a huge douchebag in my opinion) is inexcusable. Dude was just doing his job, and by the sound of it not only is he extremely qualified but he’s good at following procedure too. Leave the man alone.

    • El Bravo - Feb 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

      Thank you for this astute and reasonable analysis. Seriously, this is the best take on the situation I’ve read yet and that includes from the “major” news outlets. Well done. I really do feel for the guy handling the samples that has now been dragged throught he proverbial coals.

      • saints97 - Feb 28, 2012 at 5:46 PM

        Looks like the thumbs down Brewer fan bandit is back again.

        He’s probably just bitter that the Cardinals sent his team packing even with the fat vegetarian and the MVPee.

      • dcgfhouston - Feb 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

        I also enjoyed this. So much so, in fact, that I signed up to make this my first ever comment.

        The charges were “not sustained” is right. The stuff that was written where people insisted it was wrong that the sample was even tested all seems a bit wrong to me now. Confession time, that was the way I was leaning when I envisaged a sample sitting all weekend next to bottles of Miller Lite in some lazy, careless fool’s beer fridge. However, as the poster says “the collection procedure described in this statement sounds entirely reasonable”.

      • alldonesmith - Feb 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM

        Just glad I could contribute. My apologies for the length, I couldn’t find a way to cut it down any shorter than that.

  4. Walk - Feb 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM

    I believe i would have made the same decision that was rendered by the third party arbitrator. However i feel that the courier did his job consistent with his regulations but the regulations were flawed. If that sample was going to be kept in a private home it should have not just been left on a desk it needed to be locked in a drawer or a cabinet consistent with temperature regulations. That sample was unattended for quite a while. The collector is apparently a well known courier of long standing by his own admission. Brauns name was leaked first setting him up to be tried in the media prior to the tial and guarenteeing whatever was ruled braun loses. Make no mistake even though braun won he also lost. The mlb system lost the chance to prove that sample was 100% untampered with when it was left unattended. Now the collector’s name has been leaked by someone trying to blame him. The trial is over i see no reason for him to be named personally by braun when just calling him by his title would be sufficient. I see every reason for someone who is upset at the ruling to leak the names both brauns and the collector. I seriously doubt braun leaked his own name. That does not leave many choices. This whole trial stinks and in the end no one involved will be free from its taint.

  5. aaronmoreno - Feb 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM

    Since this guy was the key in chain of custody, then shouldn’t the appeals court have had the gist of this statement already?

  6. radicaldaisy12 - Feb 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM

    Look, Braun got his name cleared for all intents and purposes. He’s clearly looking for someone to “pin the tail of blame” on, and who better than the specimen collector. Weird stuff happens in sports and with testing…not saying that Braun got away with anything or that the guy tampered with it. Its pretty shady that this guy has to come out and defend himself and his protocol AND his reputation/family. For that, Braun — not cool. You didn’t get suspended 50 games, you’re not labeled an official “cheater” by MLB for using steroids, you get to keep your MVP award. My advice (working in sport marketing and branding) WALK AWAY (in fact, make like Usain Bolt) as fast as you can from this to protect your brand and make sure this steroids story never comes up again. As we’ve seen with Kobe and other “disgraced” stars…give it a few years and the endorsements will be right back with you if they haven’t left. Do community service in the Milwaukee area, give time to charities, be seen hugging puppies and children and the elderly and prancing around in fields of daisies…whatever you have to do. Get back the good boy image and put this as far behind you as possible.

    Who said what, who did or didn’t do what…doesn’t matter now.

  7. mariner425 - Feb 28, 2012 at 5:57 PM

    the day of the test was game one of the playoffs against the d’backs. braun had a 3 hit day for the winning team. the next day he had another 3 hit(1hr) day for the winners. if i was a d’back player, fan, etc… i would be plenty pissed.

  8. racksie - Feb 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM

    So, it looks like Craig Calcaterra was right. He didn’t get off on a technicality. They, for some reason just flat out let the guy walk. This is one dirty story. Since this is from Aaron, we will have to stay tuned for our next stern lecture from Craig about how we are all wrong. I do care about drug testing. And I care that it is carried out appropriately. And I really don’t understand how their was any breach of protocol. Braun’s now a fraud, and Rafael Palmero.

  9. scottwil - Feb 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

    I don’t know the answer, but if the collector followed the same procedures he’s followed many times before and that was considered acceptable, why did the arbitrator consider them to be unacceptable this time ? Do we have the whole story here ?
    If a sample declared to be positive can be successfull challenged and rejected by an arbitrator, why was MLB accepting negative tests (or other positive tests) using the same procedure before ? What was different in this case that induced the arbitrator to throw out the test ?

  10. stevenfbrackett - Feb 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

    If he did nothing wrong why did he take 38 seconds to answer the question: Please state your name for the record.

    Check how long 38 seconds is against your watch. It’s an eternity when all you have been asked is your name? Why the prolonged hesitation? It’s not like he could have lied about it because obviously knew who he was to call him in.

    Sets off alarm bells with me. Gut reaction, sure. But he was just asked his name! Nothing tricky or complicated or technical.

  11. schmedley69 - Feb 28, 2012 at 7:23 PM

    I think a lot worse of Ryan Braun for the denials and cover-ups than I do for testing positive in the first place.

  12. jason1214 - Feb 28, 2012 at 8:46 PM

    Racksie said it best “Braun’s a fraud”……………yes sir he is.

  13. rubbernilly - Feb 28, 2012 at 9:42 PM

    Read all of the comments, and here are the interesting things I’ve picked up… the questions I still want answered:

    1) What is the actual ratio? I’ve seen 20:1, 30:1.
    2) Does bacterial augmentation of steroid composition increase the pH of a sample, and is that tested for? (According to Saint, it is)
    3) Was there synthetic-T in the sample, and if so how much? Did said amount of synthetic-T contain the carbon isotopes created by bacteria, or not?
    4) Three players had samples collected that day, and their specimen were handled in exactly the same way. Should we not expect a similar spike in the samples of the other two players?
    5) Did Braun’s legal team reproduce a false-positive test, or not? If so, what exactly did they do to the sample?
    6) How, exactly, did the collection of this sample vary from the established procedure (enough to warrant an invalidation of the penalty)? How, exactly, did this collection vary from the thousands MLB has conducted over the past several years?

    The thing is, for all that I’m waiting for an answer to these, Braun can’t help but stumble with regard to some of these… for instance, with regard to (1), the level of the test, this isn’t “insanely” high or even the “highest ever recorded.” So why make that statement? The easy answer: to plant the meme in the public’s minds. Repeated often enough, it becomes established fact.

    Also, with regard to (5), the legal teams’ ability to reproduce a false-positive, *if* they were able to do that, then why would Braun need to sully the reputation of the collector of the sample? If his team could prove (through hard science, not pseudoscience) that the test could have degraded through only the manner in which it was collected and/or stored, what reason would they have to go after the integrity of the person collecting the sample? Makes me think that they didn’t really produce the test, or at least that it wasn’t based on hard science.

    My mind isn’t made up on this, but too much of it sounds fishy, still.

    • saints97 - Feb 28, 2012 at 10:04 PM

      Good summation. We surely don’t have enough information to make an informed decision either way, and I really doubt that enough information will ever come out to change the minds of anyone. As someone said earlier, there could be photographic evidence of Braun shooting up, and the “exonerated” crowd would still think he was clean.

      I honestly do not care if players use PEDs. It is not my life that gets shortened, and it is not me who has to make a decision between being taking major health risks and being at a competitive disadvantage.

      And I do not think some people would ever be satisfied with the “chain of custody” in this situation. Had he made the drop on the Saturday, the samples would have sat in the same box for over 40 hours before being delivered to the lab. Why should we trust Fed Ex more than a testing official? Really it comes down to the extra 24 hours in delivery (from Monday delivery to Tuesday delivery), and I haven’t seen a single argument about that 24 hours being magical with regard to the degradation of the sample.

      • rubbernilly - Feb 28, 2012 at 10:46 PM

        Agreed… I don’t really like the way people are using the term “chain of custody” so loosely in this case. To say that someone has violated the chain of custody calls to mind all sorts of ways that the chain could be broken, most egregiously by handing the sample to someone not authorized to handle it. That sort of implication is imprecise, and yet quite often invoked. We need clarity on just *how* the chain was broken… *how* the collection differed from others.

        With regard to the pH of a sample going up from bacterial contamination, you said that they test for that and have since 1990. Was that tied to the Diane Modahl case? Do you have a link that discusses pH spikes and bacterial-T?

      • saints97 - Feb 28, 2012 at 11:27 PM

        I have read so much about this stuff that I am getting a lot of it wrong (the science part, not gist of what I am saying). I am not sure if the pH goes acidic or basic (up or down), and I do not remember where I saw that. But it was something that they began testing after the failure of Diane Modahl case (it was mid-90’s, though).

        Also, with regard to the bacterial contamination theory, that may be enough to cast enough doubt on the process to throw the case out (rule for Braun), but it is hard to see how that really changes what we can think of Braun’s double positive tests. I mean, the odds of it happening at room temperature are pretty remote (and just as likely when sitting in Fed Ex and/or a Fed Ex truck). But the odds of exactly two samples out of six becoming contaminated is extremely unlikely. The odds that they were both of Braun’s samples and neither of the other four samples in the box becomes quite the amazing coincidence.

        I think that it is a very fair application of Occam’s Razor to assume that:

        1. The arbiter ruled for Braun on a procedural misstep that he believed went against the drug testing agreement.
        2. That perceived procedural misstep was actually standard operating procedure, and scientifically benign.
        and 3. Braun took a PED.

        I think those are all three the simplest explanation with the information we currently have.

    • wlschneider09 - Feb 28, 2012 at 11:52 PM

      1) The actual ratio doesn’t matter too much. Even for the lower ratio, anything that high, it didn’t happen by chance.

      2) Bacteria doesn’t augment steroid concentration. Bacteria alter the ratios by selective digestion of products. Different bacteria cause different effects on the pH, some raise it (make it more basic), some lower it, (make it more acidic), but either way the easiest and most thorough way to test for bacterial contamination is with a quick 16s DNA test. I would guess this is standard practice for any positive steroid test.

      3) dunno

      4) Logically, yes

      5) Dunno again

      6) This is the point that actually confuses me the most. I think the collection didn’t actually vary significantly, it’s just that Braun’s lawyers succeeded with a novel approach to fighting the charge.

      • cur68 - Feb 29, 2012 at 2:32 AM

        wischen: Do you have a reply then to Mareck, Geyer, Opfermann, Thevis, & Schänzer, 2008? In their article titled Factors influencing the steroid profile in doping control analysis published in Journal of Mass Spectrometry, Volume 43, Issue 7, pages 877–891 they state that “Because of the bacterial deconjugation, high amounts of steroids, normally excreted as conjugates (as And and Etio) are observed as aglycons. Another effect of bacterial activity on steroid profiles, which is more rarely observed, is the increase of the T concentration leading to elevated T/E ratios.” They go on to point out that WADA knows this and can account for it by mass spec but this is does not alter the fact that bacterial presence, over time, will increase urine testosterone. Anyone citing elevated T:E ratios is just parroting some rumor by someone ignorant of this and failing to comprehend that WADA will have discounted it. Frankly, of all the rumors, I think that “elevated testosterone” one’s the dumbest (see, now I’m engaged in being all judgmental with no evidence: this shit rubs off). Its easily explained and doesn’t invalidate the WADA result, but we haven’t all the facts so we don’t even know if its true or not!

        Oh, as far as I’m aware bacterial activity raises pH as bacteria do not survive well in acidic environments. I can’t think of an organism beyond Lactobacilli that lives in urine that would make an acid. Lactobacilli do not exist in any great number and certainly not to the point where they can out compete the alkali producers if a person is in good health, as Braun was. The only way you tend to get a drop in pH from bacteria is in the case of proliferate Lactobacilli which should mean a state of profound ill health. Such person would make an excellent case study.

      • wlschneider09 - Feb 29, 2012 at 8:05 AM

        If you read all the papers carefully you’ll find that bacteria don’t produce testosterone, they breakdown epitestosterone preferentially (hence all the discussion of metabolite products) leading to higher T:E ratios. The only organisms that produce Testosterone are vertebrates. Authors of scientific papers sometimes slip in expressing this point.

        And you are correct, if you read carefully (which I didn’t), WADA does a crap job of testing for bacterial degredation. Rather than test for bacterial DNA, which is very stable, they look for breakdown products, a moving target if I ever heard of it.

        There are a handful of bacteria that lower pH of media, none of which are found in a healthy human. But presumably we are talking about post sample contamination being one of the possibilities here, so it cannot be discounted.

      • cur68 - Feb 29, 2012 at 3:17 AM

        You’ve prompted me to do a bit more research and reading. Frankly, this is a good thing. The more I know, the less clear this mess becomes, frankly. Anyhow, as to any assertion that urine is sterile, there is Robinson, Sottas, & Saugy, 2011 who assert the exact opposite after analyzing 500 samples: “The data obtained showed that most of the urine samples were highly contaminated with bacteria.” They, and others (Tsivoua & Livadara et al. 2009: Stabilization of human urine doping control samples: II. Microbial degradation of steroids) further point out that WADA doesn’t have a good method for dealing with the bacterial colonization. If the current state of research is anything to go by, WADA is funding a number of studies to deal with that issue and to improve their differentiating ability between endogenous and exogenous sources. I’m going to remain on the fence that WADA or anyone can determine where the positive test came from until I see the reasoning and the actual evidence cited for non-suspension.

      • wlschneider09 - Feb 29, 2012 at 8:17 AM

        Interesting, can you send me the full reference for Robinson et al.? I’m curious about their testing. I have to admit, I’m not an expert in the field, but I am a scientist and can interpret primary literature. I was making the sterile urine claim from dogma that I learned way back.

        I still concur on the WADA approach to testing for bacterial contamination. They should join the 20th century.

  14. rubbernilly - Feb 28, 2012 at 9:45 PM

    Oh, one more:

    7) Was Braun’s offer of a DNA test quashed by MLB, or withdrawn by Braun’s camp?

  15. pandebailey - Feb 29, 2012 at 12:41 AM

    FYI – synthetic Testosterone sells for several hundred dollars per gram – i.e. more than Cocaine. So if it really did just “appear” in Ryan Braun’s signed and security-sealed vials over a week-end in a Milwaukee basement (oh yeah, that could happen!), that urine collector could make much more money just sitting at home and “growing” artificial steroids! Let’s all try it, people!

    Question – what kind of a guy totally throws an innocent collection agent under the bus AFTER he’s been magically let off a 50 game suspension? All Braun had to say was “I think this decision was fair, thank you….thank you!”…….
    That tells me all I need to know about Ryan Braun……..

  16. cur68 - Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 AM

    J5; I got someone claiming that bacteria doesn’t produce steroid in urine, you’ve got more unnamed sources and people cited as “close to the investigation” and so many people accept that these are “facts”. That article you link is an ESPN piece. All they have is the same rumor and unnamed sources. I’m not forming an opinion based on that stuff: there’s an agenda there, otherwise this leak wouldn’t have happened.
    As to the “bacteria do not raise steroid in urine crowd” here’s what I counter with:
    -“(In urine over time) Because of the bacterial deconjugation, high amounts of steroids, normally excreted as conjugates (as And and Etio) are observed as aglycons. Another effect of bacterial activity on steroid profiles, which is more rarely observed, is the increase of the T concentration leading to elevated T/E ratios.”

    That’s from Mareck, Geyer, Opfermann, Thevis, & Schänzer, 2008. Article titled Factors influencing the steroid profile in doping control analysis published in Journal of Mass Spectrometry, Volume 43, Issue 7, pages 877–891, July 2008

  17. rdav29 - Feb 29, 2012 at 7:19 AM

    Braun knew a test was coming at some point, and thought since he would absolutely fail it, maybe he could taint his own sample with synthetic testosterone during the test somehow to “an insanely high level” that everyone would be convinced it was a false positive.

    • rubbernilly - Feb 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

      Careful with that “insanely high level” characterization. That comes from Braun’s camp. We don’t actually have the numbers, yet… and maybe never will. But not even the 30:1 report that circulated (higher than the 20:1 report) is “insanely” high. As I understand, that ratio is right in the wheelhouse for a steroid user.

      That “insanely high” thing is becoming a meme in this discussion. We need to be clear.

  18. robgasm - Mar 23, 2012 at 5:39 PM

    Bottom line: Synthetic testosterone doesn’t magically appear in urine.

    The bacteria argument doesn’t refute this.

    The Valtrex argument doesn’t refute this. Although it’s pretty hilarious that Braun told the whole world he has herpes for nothing.

    You can argue about affected ratios all you want. Those arguments are based on possibility and not what actually happened. That’s fine though. You can still have doubts based on a possibility. However, there’s no argument that explains why the testosterone was synthetic.

    After educating myself I have no doubts as to what happened here. If people still have their doubts, then I understand that. Attacking Gino Laurenzie based on doubts is just wrong.

    If you think Braun is innocent, then you also think that Gino Laurenzi Jr. is guilty of tampering with evidence and possession of a controlled substance. The guy is a working man. He had no motive to do this. I would also question his ability to do this even if he wanted to.

    What’s more likely?
    The second best player in baseball last year and MVP of the MLB took PED’s OR
    A working man tampered with said player’s urine samples (both of them) without motive, by placing a controlled substance into them without breaking through their tamper seals.

    Once you know the facts, I don’t understand how you can’t come to the conclusion that Braun is a liar, a cheater, and an awful person… who has herpes.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2548)
  2. G. Springer (2546)
  3. H. Ramirez (2526)
  4. S. Strasburg (2402)
  5. J. Baez (2377)
  1. C. Correa (2361)
  2. M. Teixeira (2324)
  3. B. Crawford (2297)
  4. H. Pence (2291)
  5. B. Harper (2096)