We obviously need one. Colabello is eligible to return around the All-Star Break, although he won't be eligible to play in any 2016 post-season games.
So what will happen? What should happen?
So what will happen? What should happen?
As it turns out in the real world, Turinabol is a drug specifically
manufactured and marketed for drug cheats. It has, or more accurately
had, a benefit to drug cheats of quickly leaving the system, and thus
evading doping tests, and builds muscle without as much noticeable bulk.
Manufacturers expressly tell prospective drug cheats that they can
avoid testing. Problem for the Turinabol cheats though, is that WADA recently developed
better tests for it. So in December, WADA caught 17 drug cheats in
weightlifting with tests. 11 of the 17 tested positive for Turinabol.
MLB caught a further three, including Colabello, from last September
through this season, in baseball
This is interesting. Less heat, more light.
I would hope that the club would send Colabello down once his suspension is finished. He's not likely to help them anyways at that point.
This is interesting. Less heat, more light.
I would hope that the club would send Colabello down once his suspension is finished. He's not likely to help them anyways at that point.
Once Colabello finishes serving his suspension, I would imagine what will happen will be pretty close to what I think should happen: he should be optioned to AAA (and will almost certainly pass any necessary waivers) and he can try to rebuild his career. I wouldn't be particularly keen on him coming back in 2017; he'll have a quieter time in a new organization if he can find one.
The fans' general opinion of ballplayers who take anabolic steroids is pretty clear. I see no particular need to try to use this as an opportunity to challenge those beliefs.
Ironically, the Colabello suspension probably benefits the Jays. His BABIP in 2015 was very high, except for July, when it was .222; during that month, his numbers more or less matched what he did in Minnesota. Without the suspension, the Jays would likely have given him at least two months to try to get his mojo back, and he likely would have failed.
I agree with Craig about the probable (and best) outcome.
I agree with Craig about the probable (and best) outcome.
Cola has options, so no waivers required to demote him and see if he can shake off the rust in AAA before a possible return for the playoff roster.
Curious as to why people are more forgiving of Cola that Stro? Is it that, thus far, Cola seems to be guilty of intentional PED use whereas people are willing to assume Stro made a mistake?
Curious as to why people are more forgiving of Cola that Stro? Is it that, thus far, Cola seems to be guilty of intentional PED use whereas people are willing to assume Stro made a mistake?
I looked up details on Stroman's suspension, and it appears as though he took an over-the-counter supplement that had a banned stimulant in it. It's quite possible that this actually was accidental.
Curious as to why people are more forgiving of Cola that Stro? Is it that, thus far, Cola seems to be guilty of intentional PED use whereas people are willing to assume Stro made a mistake?
I think you intended it to say "less forgiving"
I think the largest part is the considerable difference in the drug, and to a lesser extent the response of the player.
Here is one manufacturer's description of Turinabol on its website. Under Doping Control it reads: (emphasis in original)
DOPING CONTROL
Compared to the majority of anabolic steroids, turinabol has one huge advantage – this compound is very hard to detect. It is made possible by the incredible speed of tbol’s excretion from the body, which, according to anecdotal evidence, takes just 5 days. This, and the fact that tbol was not screened for in 70’s and 80’s, allowed the German athletes to use this AAS without getting busted. For this reason, turinabol is a very convenient steroid for those athletes, who are subject to regular doping controls.
On the other hand, Stroman was caught with a nasal decongestant which is apparently also found in dietary supplements. Here is a description of that substance. Stroman and Josh Sale were suspended at the same time, and apparently minor league baseball suspended a whack of players for it in 2010. Although the drug can be a mild stimulant, I wonder if the reason that it is banned is that it's a diuretic, which can be part of a masking program.
Colabello had "no idea" how a very specific drug, which had become a go-to drug for cheats because it evaded detection, was found in his system, a claim for many that just repeated the stock lie. Moreover, the more we learn about Turinabol, the more ridiculous this claim seems. Stroman on the other hand didn't protest and said he made a mistake that wouldn't be repeated. It's why I said in my very first post on the subject that Colabello would have been much better served by telling the truth a la Andy Petitte, than by doubling down, a la Rogers Clemens.
I think you intended it to say "less forgiving"
I think the largest part is the considerable difference in the drug, and to a lesser extent the response of the player.
Here is one manufacturer's description of Turinabol on its website. Under Doping Control it reads: (emphasis in original)
DOPING CONTROL
Compared to the majority of anabolic steroids, turinabol has one huge advantage – this compound is very hard to detect. It is made possible by the incredible speed of tbol’s excretion from the body, which, according to anecdotal evidence, takes just 5 days. This, and the fact that tbol was not screened for in 70’s and 80’s, allowed the German athletes to use this AAS without getting busted. For this reason, turinabol is a very convenient steroid for those athletes, who are subject to regular doping controls.
On the other hand, Stroman was caught with a nasal decongestant which is apparently also found in dietary supplements. Here is a description of that substance. Stroman and Josh Sale were suspended at the same time, and apparently minor league baseball suspended a whack of players for it in 2010. Although the drug can be a mild stimulant, I wonder if the reason that it is banned is that it's a diuretic, which can be part of a masking program.
Colabello had "no idea" how a very specific drug, which had become a go-to drug for cheats because it evaded detection, was found in his system, a claim for many that just repeated the stock lie. Moreover, the more we learn about Turinabol, the more ridiculous this claim seems. Stroman on the other hand didn't protest and said he made a mistake that wouldn't be repeated. It's why I said in my very first post on the subject that Colabello would have been much better served by telling the truth a la Andy Petitte, than by doubling down, a la Rogers Clemens.
Cola has options, so no waivers required to demote him and see if he can shake off the rust in AAA before a possible return for the playoff roster.
Leaving other disagreements aside, he is not eligible for the playoff roster.
Leaving other disagreements aside, he is not eligible for the playoff roster.
My bet is Cola will be back in September with expanded rosters. The Jays will put him in AAA for 'spring training 2' in August once he can come back officially or at least that will be the story they tell his teammates. I figure as a pinch hitter he might have value in September for the Jays if he shows signs of life. In expanded roster days a guy who can only hit has value as does a guy like Pompey who can run like the wind, and pure glove men like Barney and Goins.
Partially it'll depend on how the clubhouse reacts to his situation too. So far so good for Cola on that front as everyone (publicly) is on his side as much as they can be. In 2017 he would be in the mix for DH/1B if EE and Bautista are both gone as a cheap option.
Partially it'll depend on how the clubhouse reacts to his situation too. So far so good for Cola on that front as everyone (publicly) is on his side as much as they can be. In 2017 he would be in the mix for DH/1B if EE and Bautista are both gone as a cheap option.
I will say this: the more I read about turinabol here, and just a simple google of "products containing turinabol" that turned up a full page of "steroids for the sportsman" and nothing like a "turinabol is found inside these things" list, the more I am persuaded that this was not accidental. YMMV.
I think you intended it to say "less forgiving"
I did indeed, thanks for the catch. I hadn't realized that the suspension makes him ineligible for the playoffs, and I have to concur with the rest of you guys ... based on CBDC's details on the drug, this is a bad one to get caught with.
Still crossing my fingers that Cola comes out of this looking okay, but aside from the teammate support, it's a grim scenario for him.
I did indeed, thanks for the catch. I hadn't realized that the suspension makes him ineligible for the playoffs, and I have to concur with the rest of you guys ... based on CBDC's details on the drug, this is a bad one to get caught with.
Still crossing my fingers that Cola comes out of this looking okay, but aside from the teammate support, it's a grim scenario for him.
"The fans' general opinion of ballplayers who take anabolic steroids is pretty clear."
Correct - it's clear the fans don't particularly care, certainly not as much as the media would lead you to believe. Melky was a beloved player here. Yankees fans love ARod these days. Giants fans never had a problem with Bonds. Red Sox fans aren't clamoring for the pennants tainted by Manny-Ortiz to be ripped down, and Dodgers fans partied in Mannywood.
Correct - it's clear the fans don't particularly care, certainly not as much as the media would lead you to believe. Melky was a beloved player here. Yankees fans love ARod these days. Giants fans never had a problem with Bonds. Red Sox fans aren't clamoring for the pennants tainted by Manny-Ortiz to be ripped down, and Dodgers fans partied in Mannywood.
I'm curious about Pillar's technicality.
Getting nailed for not providing a sample could be a technicality.
Being caught using a masking agent such as diuretics during the testing period could be a technicality.
None of that happened.
Maybe it's a reference to the Longitudinal Profile Program? If so, that's clearly a lack of comprehension from Pillar. That would be like saying that, technically, he only failed the test because he was subjected to it.
I can see a lot of technicality in the Reasonable Cause Testing, but it's already been established that he failed the routine test.
Can't think of anything.
Getting nailed for not providing a sample could be a technicality.
Being caught using a masking agent such as diuretics during the testing period could be a technicality.
None of that happened.
Maybe it's a reference to the Longitudinal Profile Program? If so, that's clearly a lack of comprehension from Pillar. That would be like saying that, technically, he only failed the test because he was subjected to it.
I can see a lot of technicality in the Reasonable Cause Testing, but it's already been established that he failed the routine test.
Can't think of anything.
I don't know if this is bad to say, but when I heard it was Colabello who was suspended, I was glad. Team's better off for it imo.
"....the more we learn about Turinabol, the more ridiculous this claim seems...."
It's interesting that you won't believe anything that the consumer of the PED has said, but you'll cheerfully believe anything that the manufacturer says. Have you considered that the sellers of most products routinely hype their products by making exaggerated claims about it? If the manufacturer says that Turinabol is "hard to detect", isn't it likely that the manufacturer is trying to hype it to sell it? We haven't "learned" anything about the situation if we are simply relying on the claims of the seller. If you are so adamantly opposed to "moral relativism" as you emphasized yesterday, it's odd that you would attack the alleged consumer as "a liar" but you would assume that the trafficker is a truth-teller.
"...This, and the fact that tbol was not screened for in 70’s and 80’s, allowed the German athletes to use this AAS without getting busted..."
This claim by the manufacturer is particularly amusing. If there was no screening for this drug in the 1970s and 1980s, that's certainly the entire reason why nobody got busted for it. It's not because it was "impossible to detect" or because it was "the go-to drug for cheaters" -- it's simply because nobody was screening for it. Even the manufacturer admits that the international community has known about this drug for 27 years.
In fact, contrary to the "impossible to detect" claim of the manufacturer, major national laboratories have actually been using new detection methods for Turinabol since 2013, and they found hundreds of new cases of positive results among track-and-field athletes in 2013 alone. Presumably it would have been easy for baseball to use the same methods. Here's the source on the detection methods that began in 2013:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/drugsinsport/10458454/IOC-to-act-after-new-testing-methods-reveal-hundreds-of-positive-results.html
And here's another report on the same detection method:
http://www.3wiresports.com/2014/03/20/echoes-east-germany/
So the theory that Colabello was suddenly caught by a brand-new testing method doesn't seem true. Those methods have been around for three years.
It's interesting that you won't believe anything that the consumer of the PED has said, but you'll cheerfully believe anything that the manufacturer says. Have you considered that the sellers of most products routinely hype their products by making exaggerated claims about it? If the manufacturer says that Turinabol is "hard to detect", isn't it likely that the manufacturer is trying to hype it to sell it? We haven't "learned" anything about the situation if we are simply relying on the claims of the seller. If you are so adamantly opposed to "moral relativism" as you emphasized yesterday, it's odd that you would attack the alleged consumer as "a liar" but you would assume that the trafficker is a truth-teller.
"...This, and the fact that tbol was not screened for in 70’s and 80’s, allowed the German athletes to use this AAS without getting busted..."
This claim by the manufacturer is particularly amusing. If there was no screening for this drug in the 1970s and 1980s, that's certainly the entire reason why nobody got busted for it. It's not because it was "impossible to detect" or because it was "the go-to drug for cheaters" -- it's simply because nobody was screening for it. Even the manufacturer admits that the international community has known about this drug for 27 years.
In fact, contrary to the "impossible to detect" claim of the manufacturer, major national laboratories have actually been using new detection methods for Turinabol since 2013, and they found hundreds of new cases of positive results among track-and-field athletes in 2013 alone. Presumably it would have been easy for baseball to use the same methods. Here's the source on the detection methods that began in 2013:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/drugsinsport/10458454/IOC-to-act-after-new-testing-methods-reveal-hundreds-of-positive-results.html
And here's another report on the same detection method:
http://www.3wiresports.com/2014/03/20/echoes-east-germany/
So the theory that Colabello was suddenly caught by a brand-new testing method doesn't seem true. Those methods have been around for three years.
Let's not confuse the use in baseball with the use in Olympic sports.
A track and field athlete would use this while training and stop using it a week before a competition to avoid detection. In baseball, the player competes every day and is tested randomly. The strategy would be different. Perhaps train with the drug during the off season, stop just before spring training to show up in camp in great shape. On average the athlete would be tested, let's say 3 times during the year, so only use the drug a couples of week here and there, maybe just after passing a test.
Colabello failed the scheduled spring training test. Clearly the test was better than he expected.
A track and field athlete would use this while training and stop using it a week before a competition to avoid detection. In baseball, the player competes every day and is tested randomly. The strategy would be different. Perhaps train with the drug during the off season, stop just before spring training to show up in camp in great shape. On average the athlete would be tested, let's say 3 times during the year, so only use the drug a couples of week here and there, maybe just after passing a test.
Colabello failed the scheduled spring training test. Clearly the test was better than he expected.
Lots of speculation going around on both sides. I bet Mr. Colabello knows the truth though.
p.s. Mr CBDC. If Colabello is indeed innocent of intent or other means should he still say he's sorry he made a mistake and will never do it again to appease you or should he claim his innocence?
BTW, I doubt he is innocent of intent but I really don't know.
p.s. Mr CBDC. If Colabello is indeed innocent of intent or other means should he still say he's sorry he made a mistake and will never do it again to appease you or should he claim his innocence?
BTW, I doubt he is innocent of intent but I really don't know.
I would have more respect (although not a whole lot) for an athlete caught with a failed drug test if they would just be honest and say," Yeah, I took the stuff, I made a mistake, I'm sorry. It will never happen again." The tired refrain of "I have no idea how that substance got there" really wears thin with me. It's bad enough to be a cheat. Don't compound it by being a liar, too.
To play devil's advocate, why say that you did it and are sorry? If you take PED's b/c you are a fringey MLBer and you think you need every advantage to make the bigs - then the notion of the 'integrity of the game' - is less relevant than the notion of 'I'd like a nice living for me and my family'.
Plausible deniability. It's like those Russian volunteers who cross into Ukraine with their tanks worth tens of millions.
Well, for one thing, if you have a positive drug test, you're screwed one way or another anyway so why not tell the truth? Protestations of innocence just keep the matter in the public eye longer. I mean, who really believed Roger Clemens when he was being tried? Not only that, but it makes it worse for the odd person who really did take something unknowingly. Their expressions of innocence will be met with a collective eye-rolling.
Also, I wasn't thinking of the fringy MLBer in my remark. I was thinking more of the stars of their respective sport,from Ben Johnson to Lance Armstrong to ball players like Rafael Palmeiro. In Ben Johnson's case, I wanted to believe him, that he was innocent and it was all a mistake. However, his eventual conviction and public shaming, plus subsequent cases where the same scenario is played out, has made me jaded. Just cut the crap and tell the truth. There's been a ton of words written on here about Chris Colabello but it boils down to this: in the unlikely event he's innocent, the similar statements of past cheats make him look guilty. If he's guilty, then he's trying to deceive the media, fans, and worst of all, his team mates. I don't think this reflects on the integrity of the game, but rather on the integrity of the person.
Also, I wasn't thinking of the fringy MLBer in my remark. I was thinking more of the stars of their respective sport,from Ben Johnson to Lance Armstrong to ball players like Rafael Palmeiro. In Ben Johnson's case, I wanted to believe him, that he was innocent and it was all a mistake. However, his eventual conviction and public shaming, plus subsequent cases where the same scenario is played out, has made me jaded. Just cut the crap and tell the truth. There's been a ton of words written on here about Chris Colabello but it boils down to this: in the unlikely event he's innocent, the similar statements of past cheats make him look guilty. If he's guilty, then he's trying to deceive the media, fans, and worst of all, his team mates. I don't think this reflects on the integrity of the game, but rather on the integrity of the person.
Victor Conte thinks it was either a miscalculation or a contamination. Link
Quote from that link:
“It was either a miscalculation,’’ Conte said, “or a contamination.
“It’s a drug that no one being tested uses anymore, because it’s going to stay in your system for three months. Maybe even as long as six months.
So, the alternate theory to mere stupidity: There are so many amateur chemists these days, Conte says, that athletes are relying on individuals using the same glassware whether they’re mixing up designer testosterone or old-fashioned steroids.
“You have all of these clandestine labs now," Conte said. “So anybody taking these risks is really asking for a positive test. This isn’t getting something you’re buying from a GNC store; 80% of the stuff is coming from these underground labs. So they whip it up at home, use the same beakers and flasks, and sometimes don’t wash the glass well, and leave traces from the previous batch.
“We call it cross-contamination. Really, it’s just dirty glassware.’’
“It was either a miscalculation,’’ Conte said, “or a contamination.
“It’s a drug that no one being tested uses anymore, because it’s going to stay in your system for three months. Maybe even as long as six months.
So, the alternate theory to mere stupidity: There are so many amateur chemists these days, Conte says, that athletes are relying on individuals using the same glassware whether they’re mixing up designer testosterone or old-fashioned steroids.
“You have all of these clandestine labs now," Conte said. “So anybody taking these risks is really asking for a positive test. This isn’t getting something you’re buying from a GNC store; 80% of the stuff is coming from these underground labs. So they whip it up at home, use the same beakers and flasks, and sometimes don’t wash the glass well, and leave traces from the previous batch.
“We call it cross-contamination. Really, it’s just dirty glassware.’’
Conte's theory is interesting. It still implies that Colabello was probably taking something clandestine, rather than an ordinary supplement. But it also confirms that players such as Colabello are very unlikely to be deliberately taking Turinabol. Why? Because it is so easily detected (compared to other substances) -- despite all those silly promotional brags by the manufacturer that were quoted earlier in this thread.
I'm sure it won't change anyone's opinion, but Colabello is giving a full interview on Sportsnet at 6:45 pm tonight. In the excerpt that they've already posted, he claims to have passed 20 drug tests without problems until the March 13 test. Says he doesn't deny that the metabolite was in his system; the question is how it got there, and he is still pursuing that. (Cynics and skeptics, you may now react.)
I must say that he looks quite nervous and rather unconvincing in the brief excerpt from the interview. He seems highly stressed. But that alone doesn't necessarily add to the evidence of his guilt or innocence. A lot of us would look nervous and stressed if our careers and public reputations would be suddenly crashing down around us.
And please note: in any of my posts on this subject over the past few days, I've never said anything about the "nice guy" or "good guy" argument. I agree with those who say that it's irrelevant. Nice guys can do PEDs too.
I must say that he looks quite nervous and rather unconvincing in the brief excerpt from the interview. He seems highly stressed. But that alone doesn't necessarily add to the evidence of his guilt or innocence. A lot of us would look nervous and stressed if our careers and public reputations would be suddenly crashing down around us.
And please note: in any of my posts on this subject over the past few days, I've never said anything about the "nice guy" or "good guy" argument. I agree with those who say that it's irrelevant. Nice guys can do PEDs too.
I notice Colabello's words seem to have double meaning: I mean he could also be saying "How" and "why" and "I would not jeopardize the Jays" if he was getting advice from someone that had success in cheating with other players without getting caught. I suspect the ones that get caught are only tip of iceberg.
Like all the Russian athletes (Sharapova) recently caught .. the testing must change every now and then and some get caught for things they have done for awhile. Colabello was second for this substance in short period.
Like all the Russian athletes (Sharapova) recently caught .. the testing must change every now and then and some get caught for things they have done for awhile. Colabello was second for this substance in short period.
The fact that he has passed 20 drug tests is immaterial. If he said convincingly "I have never taken anything but an MLB-approved product", that would be interesting.
The Conte article raised more questions than it answered. If it is a issue of contamination in dubious labs with a very old steroid, why would we see more cases of it now than 5-10 years ago?
The Conte article raised more questions than it answered. If it is a issue of contamination in dubious labs with a very old steroid, why would we see more cases of it now than 5-10 years ago?
"....The fact that he has passed 20 drug tests is immaterial...."
It's immaterial to the test on March 13, 2016. It's not immaterial to the question of whether he took PEDs last season or in prior seasons, which some of us have been debating.
"....If it is a issue of contamination in dubious labs with a very old steroid..."
It's an old steroid, but still widely used today. Check online -- there's tons of information about it still being widely sold and widely used by many people today. Not necessarily by MLB players, however. I assume it's widely used by bodybuilders and others who aren't routinely tested.
It's immaterial to the test on March 13, 2016. It's not immaterial to the question of whether he took PEDs last season or in prior seasons, which some of us have been debating.
"....If it is a issue of contamination in dubious labs with a very old steroid..."
It's an old steroid, but still widely used today. Check online -- there's tons of information about it still being widely sold and widely used by many people today. Not necessarily by MLB players, however. I assume it's widely used by bodybuilders and others who aren't routinely tested.
Colabello hasn't been suspended from baseball on the grounds that he is smart. He's been suspended on the grounds that he has violated MLB's drug policy, and in particular taken the anabolic steroid turinabol. Why he is stupid enough, along with 11 weightlifters suspended in December after the IWF championships, and 2 other baseball players caught at roughly the same time using turinabol, is of no particular significance. The criminal bar could I suspect, regale us with a million stories of clients who were as stupid as they come.
I expect rather than telling us he passed x number of tests, which like Rodriguez only tells us he wasn't caught, that Colabello will have some firm evidence to provide. Anyone advising him of any acceptable level of advocacy skill would advise him that he first needs to explain how he failed the T/E gateway test, which led to the further testing. As the useful Conte interview that Gerry linked to indicates, regular cheaters like Rodriguez would be able to space their consumption far enough away that they could get below the 4:1 test which just measures how much testosterone, natural and illegal, is in your system. If you're below 4:1, WADA doesn't test further. Most men have a ratio of 1:1. It can apparently vary by time of day and ethnicity though, to as low as .76 and as high as 1.31.
Some men however have a naturally occurring higher ratio that this. 5% of men have a ratio of 3.7:1 or more. WADA uses a level of 4:1 as its gateway test, which as Conte notes should be easy to get under for most cheaters who allow enough time to pass, let alone for honest men.
So let's hear what Colabello's normal T/E ratio is and let's here what the T/E ratio was on the test that he failed. An innocent man's first task is to explain how he failed the gateway test. Maybe Colabello is one of the small percentage of men who have a naturally occurring T/E ratio of more than 4:1. And let's hear what he scored. These are the first things that an innocent naan will be looking into. Is his natural occurring T/E ratio 4:1, and did he score 4.1:1? Or is his naturally occurring T/E ratio 1:1 and he scored 9:1?
It's odd that we haven't heard from Colabello on this yet. Plenty of time has passed since he was told on March 13 to obtain this information and get in out to the court of the public, where his case must be tried now that he's been so wrongly trapped by a 'technicality' by WADA and so wrongly denied on appeal by an MLBPA/MLB arbitrator. But no doubt these are things he'll be sure to reveal in his Sportsnet interview.
I'm being sarcastic of course. I suspect his interview will be Jamie Astaphan 2, with the stock denials, the tales of rigid adherence to the MLB/MLBPA drug policy, except having to answer soft questions from reporters. who don't want to be seen as being aggressive with him, asking him if this has been a stressful time. Would be nice to have Barbara Frum with us, or Katy Couric in her place, to do a real interview and ask some real questions.
I expect rather than telling us he passed x number of tests, which like Rodriguez only tells us he wasn't caught, that Colabello will have some firm evidence to provide. Anyone advising him of any acceptable level of advocacy skill would advise him that he first needs to explain how he failed the T/E gateway test, which led to the further testing. As the useful Conte interview that Gerry linked to indicates, regular cheaters like Rodriguez would be able to space their consumption far enough away that they could get below the 4:1 test which just measures how much testosterone, natural and illegal, is in your system. If you're below 4:1, WADA doesn't test further. Most men have a ratio of 1:1. It can apparently vary by time of day and ethnicity though, to as low as .76 and as high as 1.31.
Some men however have a naturally occurring higher ratio that this. 5% of men have a ratio of 3.7:1 or more. WADA uses a level of 4:1 as its gateway test, which as Conte notes should be easy to get under for most cheaters who allow enough time to pass, let alone for honest men.
So let's hear what Colabello's normal T/E ratio is and let's here what the T/E ratio was on the test that he failed. An innocent man's first task is to explain how he failed the gateway test. Maybe Colabello is one of the small percentage of men who have a naturally occurring T/E ratio of more than 4:1. And let's hear what he scored. These are the first things that an innocent naan will be looking into. Is his natural occurring T/E ratio 4:1, and did he score 4.1:1? Or is his naturally occurring T/E ratio 1:1 and he scored 9:1?
It's odd that we haven't heard from Colabello on this yet. Plenty of time has passed since he was told on March 13 to obtain this information and get in out to the court of the public, where his case must be tried now that he's been so wrongly trapped by a 'technicality' by WADA and so wrongly denied on appeal by an MLBPA/MLB arbitrator. But no doubt these are things he'll be sure to reveal in his Sportsnet interview.
I'm being sarcastic of course. I suspect his interview will be Jamie Astaphan 2, with the stock denials, the tales of rigid adherence to the MLB/MLBPA drug policy, except having to answer soft questions from reporters. who don't want to be seen as being aggressive with him, asking him if this has been a stressful time. Would be nice to have Barbara Frum with us, or Katy Couric in her place, to do a real interview and ask some real questions.
"....having to answer soft questions from reporters..."
You obviously haven't bothered to look at the excerpt from the interview, which has been circulating for hours. The question from the reporter was not a soft one at all. It was a tough question, and it's exactly the same as what all the critics have been saying. The question, paraphrased, was this: "Colabello, you seem to be precisely the kind of 'usual suspect' who fits the profile of a PED user. You're a longtime fringe player who suddenly transformed into a .321 hitter at the age of 31, late in life. What would you say to people who point out that you perfectly fit the profile of a PED user?"
I haven't seen the rest of the questions, but I won't prejudge them. Maybe they'll be good questions, or maybe they won't. But the one question that we've seen so far was certainly not a soft one. It asked exactly the question that CBDC and others have been asking.
You obviously haven't bothered to look at the excerpt from the interview, which has been circulating for hours. The question from the reporter was not a soft one at all. It was a tough question, and it's exactly the same as what all the critics have been saying. The question, paraphrased, was this: "Colabello, you seem to be precisely the kind of 'usual suspect' who fits the profile of a PED user. You're a longtime fringe player who suddenly transformed into a .321 hitter at the age of 31, late in life. What would you say to people who point out that you perfectly fit the profile of a PED user?"
I haven't seen the rest of the questions, but I won't prejudge them. Maybe they'll be good questions, or maybe they won't. But the one question that we've seen so far was certainly not a soft one. It asked exactly the question that CBDC and others have been asking.
Check online -- there's tons of information about it still being widely sold and widely used by many people today. Not necessarily by MLB players
Three of the last five MLB suspensions for drug violations have been for turinabol (called tbol). Cody Stanley, Daniel Stumpf, Chris Colabello. First, September 2015. Second and third, April 2016.
In March 2016 WADA published an update noting improved detection procedures for turinabol.
Three of the last five MLB suspensions for drug violations have been for turinabol (called tbol). Cody Stanley, Daniel Stumpf, Chris Colabello. First, September 2015. Second and third, April 2016.
In March 2016 WADA published an update noting improved detection procedures for turinabol.
"....In March 2016 WADA published an update noting improved detection procedures for turinabol...."
As I noted above, those improved detection methods have been around since 2013, and were catching track-and-field athletes already in 2013.
As I noted above, those improved detection methods have been around since 2013, and were catching track-and-field athletes already in 2013.
They were, were they. For some reason you know that WADA is posting in 2016 something that is not an 'Update' as they claim, but merely a recitation of everything they already knew in 2013. Please tell us how you know this.
I'm not a scientist, and I strongly suspect neither are you. So please help us by telling us how you purport to know that what is contained in the WADA update, published March 2, 2016, titled “Improved detection of Oral-Turinabol structure identification and elimination of metabolites and generation of reference material” is not an improvement in detection at all.
I'm not a scientist, and I strongly suspect neither are you. So please help us by telling us how you purport to know that what is contained in the WADA update, published March 2, 2016, titled “Improved detection of Oral-Turinabol structure identification and elimination of metabolites and generation of reference material” is not an improvement in detection at all.
Sounds like you haven't read the links that I posted earlier.
It asked exactly the question that CBDC and others have been asking.
I posed the questions I would be asking above. The first question I would be asking is what his score was on the gateway T/E ratio test. I suspect the first question a criminal lawyer would ask his client who has failed a breathalyser test and now claims to have no idea how alcohol got in his system because he wasn't drinking, is what the breathalyser count was.
I posed the questions I would be asking above. The first question I would be asking is what his score was on the gateway T/E ratio test. I suspect the first question a criminal lawyer would ask his client who has failed a breathalyser test and now claims to have no idea how alcohol got in his system because he wasn't drinking, is what the breathalyser count was.
Sounds like you haven't read the links that I posted earlier.
Actually I did take the time to read them. That doesn't offer an answer to my question however. One of the articles said that in 2013 WADA was able to catch some other drug cheats, these ones in track and field whom they previously were unable to catch due to the quick metabolization period of turinabol, because they could now identify something called metabolites. On March 2, 2016 they published what they called an "Update", stating that they had improved the detection of metabolites in turinabol testing. In fact it's called “Improved detection of Oral-Turinabol structure identification and elimination of metabolites and generation of reference material”
You claimed to know that this is false, that there has been no improvement in the testing for turinabol as the title of the March 2, 2016 "update" claims, and my simple request is that you tell us how you claim to know this?
Actually I did take the time to read them. That doesn't offer an answer to my question however. One of the articles said that in 2013 WADA was able to catch some other drug cheats, these ones in track and field whom they previously were unable to catch due to the quick metabolization period of turinabol, because they could now identify something called metabolites. On March 2, 2016 they published what they called an "Update", stating that they had improved the detection of metabolites in turinabol testing. In fact it's called “Improved detection of Oral-Turinabol structure identification and elimination of metabolites and generation of reference material”
You claimed to know that this is false, that there has been no improvement in the testing for turinabol as the title of the March 2, 2016 "update" claims, and my simple request is that you tell us how you claim to know this?
No, I didn't say the WADA statement is false. But if you're referring to the WADA publication of March 2, 2016, it is not an announcement or an "update" -- it is referring to a planned project for further technical refinements. Maybe there have been several improvements since 2013. Don't forget that the 2013 detection improvements were at the level of the national laboratories, not WADA. Perhaps the agency is simply trying to refine and improve the methods of the national laboratories.
In any event, neither of us know exactly when MLB improved its own testing methods, since MLB is not the same as WADA or the national laboratories. But the simple point is that the technology has improved drastically since 2013 and -- as Victor Conte correctly points out -- no baseball player would willingly take Turinabol in the belief that it is undetectable. It has been easily detectable for years. Baseball players know that. This is why the several recent cases have been so surprising.
In any event, neither of us know exactly when MLB improved its own testing methods, since MLB is not the same as WADA or the national laboratories. But the simple point is that the technology has improved drastically since 2013 and -- as Victor Conte correctly points out -- no baseball player would willingly take Turinabol in the belief that it is undetectable. It has been easily detectable for years. Baseball players know that. This is why the several recent cases have been so surprising.
Conte's theory is interesting. It still implies that Colabello was probably taking something clandestine, rather than an ordinary supplement. But it also confirms that players such as Colabello are very unlikely to be deliberately taking Turinabol.
This too makes no sense. As stated above, three of the last five players suspended under the MLB drug policy. Colabello got caught with the same steroid as the other drug cheats, none of whom by the way, are claiming that they have "no idea" how this got in their system. Colabello is among the most obvious of the garden variety drug cheats, who when caught told garden variety lies.
This too makes no sense. As stated above, three of the last five players suspended under the MLB drug policy. Colabello got caught with the same steroid as the other drug cheats, none of whom by the way, are claiming that they have "no idea" how this got in their system. Colabello is among the most obvious of the garden variety drug cheats, who when caught told garden variety lies.
Maybe there have been several improvements since 2013. Don't forget that the 2013 detection improvements were at the level of the national laboratories, not WADA. Perhaps the agency is simply trying to refine and improve the methods of the national laboratories.
This is fair enough.
This is fair enough.
In any event, neither of us know exactly when MLB improved its own testing methods, since MLB is not the same as WADA or the national laboratories. But the simple point is that the technology has improved drastically since 2013 and -- as Victor Conte correctly points out -- no baseball player would willingly take Turinabol in the belief that it is undetectable. It has been easily detectable for years. Baseball players know that. This is why the several recent cases have been so surprising.
Are you saying WADA doesn't do the MLB testing? Also, I see nowhere in the Conte interview where he says what you say he "correctly points out: that "No play would take Turinabol in the belief it is undetectable.
Are you saying WADA doesn't do the MLB testing? Also, I see nowhere in the Conte interview where he says what you say he "correctly points out: that "No play would take Turinabol in the belief it is undetectable.
Conte repeatedly emphasizes that it would be "stupid" to take
Turinabol. He's clearly referring to the fact that Turinabol is
old-fashioned and easy to detect, and he contrasts it to the Biogenesis drugs. Here's the full passage, which clearly implies that Turinabol is an "inferior" drug because it's so
easy to detect:
Conte struggles with the concept that Turinabol is making a comeback.
Conte struggles with the concept that Turinabol is making a comeback.
Conte instead wonders if this is the latest wave of athletes utilizing inferior chemists.
Find a good one - as 14 of the 16 players ensared in the 2013 Biogenesis scandal taught us - and you can avoid detection by baseball’s drug testers.
“If you’re smart, you’ll never get caught,’’ Conte told USA TODAY Sports. “The research shows that if you go home from the ballpark, and take a fast-acting testosterone, it will peak at 1 in the morning, get down before the 4-to-1 TE ratio by 4 in the morning, and by the time you get to the ballpark, you can’t test positive. That’s what (Alex Rodriguez) and all of those guys in Biogenesis were doing.
“So to get caught now, you’ve got to be pretty dumb. And to use Turinabol, that’s dumber than dumb. Nobody with any brains are using Turinabol. That’s just stupidity.”
I suspect many players take Turinabol and other risky (for getting caught) drugs in the off-season hoping to be clear before spring figuring the odds of being tested in the off-season are low. If they have expanded the range it can be caught in then I'm sure a few could've been caught by pushing the limits a bit which a player like Cola would be likely to do if he is scared about losing his job.
“So to get caught now, you’ve got to be pretty dumb. And to use Turinabol, that’s dumber than dumb. Nobody with any brains are using Turinabol. That’s just stupidity.”
Yes, you may need to be stupid, at least in Conte's eyes, to use turinabol. That's still very different from quoting Conte as saying that is very unlikely that Colabello used turinabol.
Moreover, it is obvious that players, and weightlifters, are or were, using turinabol, so whether Conte thinks it's smart or not seems beside the point.
If you haven't already done so, it is well worth the time to watch on youtube the Al Jazeera expose on steroid dealing. It gives you a good view of how 'random' the illegal steroid business is. It is worth reading the follow-ups as well, when the denials started.
Yes, you may need to be stupid, at least in Conte's eyes, to use turinabol. That's still very different from quoting Conte as saying that is very unlikely that Colabello used turinabol.
Moreover, it is obvious that players, and weightlifters, are or were, using turinabol, so whether Conte thinks it's smart or not seems beside the point.
If you haven't already done so, it is well worth the time to watch on youtube the Al Jazeera expose on steroid dealing. It gives you a good view of how 'random' the illegal steroid business is. It is worth reading the follow-ups as well, when the denials started.
All MLB testing in done in the WADA lab in Montreal.
The Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program talks specifically about the Montreal Lab. Over and over again.
Article 1.D
For the term of this Program, laboratory analysis under the Program shall be performed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (IRNS-Institut Armand Frappier) Montreal Canada. (Montreal Lab)
The Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program talks specifically about the Montreal Lab. Over and over again.
Article 1.D
For the term of this Program, laboratory analysis under the Program shall be performed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (IRNS-Institut Armand Frappier) Montreal Canada. (Montreal Lab)
As I noted above, those improved detection methods have been around
since 2013, and were catching track-and-field athletes already in 2013.
The link you posted seems to be associated with the now decertified lab in Moscow and goes out of its way to expose 2 Ukrainian athletes.
The recent WADA article talks about developing a testing methodology that can stand up to legal challenges by athletes. It makes perfect sense that MLB would be more conservative in its testing.
The link you posted seems to be associated with the now decertified lab in Moscow and goes out of its way to expose 2 Ukrainian athletes.
The recent WADA article talks about developing a testing methodology that can stand up to legal challenges by athletes. It makes perfect sense that MLB would be more conservative in its testing.
Scottt, I'm rather astonished that you would so deliberately misquote the stories that I cited. The links that I posted were mostly about German testing, and they caught hundreds of cases. The Ukrainian case was just one of the hundreds of cases that were caught with the new methods. Yes, the stories also mentioned Russian testing, but they were primarily about German testing and the hundreds of cases caught by the Cologne laboratory.
As for your earlier post: Thank you for the information about WADA and MLB testing. But my point remains the same: from the wording of the March 2016 "project review" by WADA, there's no indication that WADA isn't already doing testing for Turinabol for MLB, and presumably using the technology that has been available for years.
The broader point is that an athlete wouldn't choose Turinabol if he wanted to cheat, because it is so easily detected. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'm still awaiting it.
As for your earlier post: Thank you for the information about WADA and MLB testing. But my point remains the same: from the wording of the March 2016 "project review" by WADA, there's no indication that WADA isn't already doing testing for Turinabol for MLB, and presumably using the technology that has been available for years.
The broader point is that an athlete wouldn't choose Turinabol if he wanted to cheat, because it is so easily detected. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'm still awaiting it.
No, it's not. The Cologne lab was not reporting about Turinabol.
Here's a bit of a timeline:
In 2013, MLB introduces the in-season blood testing for HGH and longitudinal profiling for testosterone.
In 2014, MLB starts using the Mass Spectrometer. It cost $400 per test but can detect steroid 2 weeks after ingestion rather than the previous test which would only catch steroid used within 24hr--more or less.
The test used this year, can detect Turinabol ingested in the past 6 months. It's not likely that it was used last year, since the methodology was too new to be approved by the Players Association. That explains why people are getting caught now.
In 2013, MLB introduces the in-season blood testing for HGH and longitudinal profiling for testosterone.
In 2014, MLB starts using the Mass Spectrometer. It cost $400 per test but can detect steroid 2 weeks after ingestion rather than the previous test which would only catch steroid used within 24hr--more or less.
The test used this year, can detect Turinabol ingested in the past 6 months. It's not likely that it was used last year, since the methodology was too new to be approved by the Players Association. That explains why people are getting caught now.
The identity of many of those who have recently failed drug tests has yet to be revealed, though two track and field athletes are known to have tested positive for Oral-Turinabol at the World Championships in Moscow in August.
Grigory Rodchenkov, head of the Moscow laboratory, told the TV programme: "With this detection method, a hundred urine samples have now tested positive that would previously have turned up negative."
A similar story was reported in Cologne, where scientists have uncovered a glut of positive cases, including more than a hundred involving stanazolol.
Grigory Rodchenkov, head of the Moscow laboratory, told the TV programme: "With this detection method, a hundred urine samples have now tested positive that would previously have turned up negative."
A similar story was reported in Cologne, where scientists have uncovered a glut of positive cases, including more than a hundred involving stanazolol.
What struck out for me:
"So tell me," Conte asked, "was there a spike in his performance?"
"So why are people surprised?" "How do you think that was possible?"
I don't think Ortiz's performance is possible. It's just that we don't have the right test yet.
"So tell me," Conte asked, "was there a spike in his performance?"
"So why are people surprised?" "How do you think that was possible?"
I don't think Ortiz's performance is possible. It's just that we don't have the right test yet.
"It's going to be impossible to find a 100 percent level
playing field. But it seems like we're at 98-99 percent," Bautista said.
"That seems to be good enough. And the guys who are willing to risk
it...there are always going to be a few rotten apples, no matter where
you are."
There's no point in any of us playing amateur toxicologists and trying to divine truth from the internet.
Major league baseball, and other sports, could have chosen a testing system where accused dopers, instead of going through an advanced and sophisticated testing procedure, went on TV and everyone voted thumbs up or thumbs down to their pleas of innocence. That would be a wild affair, with huge variations depending on whether they were fans of the players or not.
But instead, MLB and the MLBPA agreed upon a scientific method of testing, which would act as a somewhat loose filter, and catch the most obvious drug cheats. Before you even move to the B sample tests, which in Colabello's case detected specifically the anabolic steroid Turinabol, you have to have failed the T/E ratio screen which is set at 4 times the usual amount of testosterone. As the Conte article pointed out, that's a low bar to hurdle.
I suspect that Colabello's ridiculous protestations that Turinabol just inexplicably showed up in his urine samples, are being met with complete derision not pnly by those who design and administer the tests, but also by those in MLB and the MLBPA who are intimately familiar with both the testing procedure, and with his specific test results.
But more than that, in answer to the questions above about why Colabello should tell the truth, this is why I think experienced counsel would have advised him to do so. MLB and the MLBPA have negotiated a steroid policy which is beneficial to players. Except for a once a year test for growth hormone, players are not required to provide a blood sample. In order to be submitted to more than twice a year urine tests, you need to have already failed and been suspended.
I can see why Colabello feels he is in a desperate situation. He has tasted major league success and now not only is his reputation in tatters, his future career, to the extent that he may have one, is in considerable jeopardy.
The last thing experienced counsel would advise Colabello to do is go around making public accusations that he has been falsely 'convicted' under the joint MLB/MLBPA system. I doubt that the clubs, the players' association or WADA have anything but the deepest disrespect for a guy who, once caught cheating, publicly claims that it is the fault of the testing procedure and not his own. While Colabello is not astute enough to figure this out, this is the type of advice he should be receiving. The MLBPA is deafeningly silent and offering no public support for his claim that it has agreed to a testing procedure which convicts the self-proclaimed 'innocent'. The clubs will have no desire to embrace someone who goes on TV to proclaim that he has been falsely found to be doping, a claim which undermines the joint system, with the superficial claim that he has "no idea" how Turinabol entered his system. Rather than being seem as someone who displays remorse, Colabello will be regarded as someone who, once caught cheating, tried to undermine the testing policy with superficial lies.
That is why I would have advised Colabello that his best avenue is to tell the truth and admit that he deliberately used Turinabol, to express remorse for having done so, and to commit that it would never happen again. He appears to be taking the exact opposite course, which in my view is misguided.
Major league baseball, and other sports, could have chosen a testing system where accused dopers, instead of going through an advanced and sophisticated testing procedure, went on TV and everyone voted thumbs up or thumbs down to their pleas of innocence. That would be a wild affair, with huge variations depending on whether they were fans of the players or not.
But instead, MLB and the MLBPA agreed upon a scientific method of testing, which would act as a somewhat loose filter, and catch the most obvious drug cheats. Before you even move to the B sample tests, which in Colabello's case detected specifically the anabolic steroid Turinabol, you have to have failed the T/E ratio screen which is set at 4 times the usual amount of testosterone. As the Conte article pointed out, that's a low bar to hurdle.
I suspect that Colabello's ridiculous protestations that Turinabol just inexplicably showed up in his urine samples, are being met with complete derision not pnly by those who design and administer the tests, but also by those in MLB and the MLBPA who are intimately familiar with both the testing procedure, and with his specific test results.
But more than that, in answer to the questions above about why Colabello should tell the truth, this is why I think experienced counsel would have advised him to do so. MLB and the MLBPA have negotiated a steroid policy which is beneficial to players. Except for a once a year test for growth hormone, players are not required to provide a blood sample. In order to be submitted to more than twice a year urine tests, you need to have already failed and been suspended.
I can see why Colabello feels he is in a desperate situation. He has tasted major league success and now not only is his reputation in tatters, his future career, to the extent that he may have one, is in considerable jeopardy.
The last thing experienced counsel would advise Colabello to do is go around making public accusations that he has been falsely 'convicted' under the joint MLB/MLBPA system. I doubt that the clubs, the players' association or WADA have anything but the deepest disrespect for a guy who, once caught cheating, publicly claims that it is the fault of the testing procedure and not his own. While Colabello is not astute enough to figure this out, this is the type of advice he should be receiving. The MLBPA is deafeningly silent and offering no public support for his claim that it has agreed to a testing procedure which convicts the self-proclaimed 'innocent'. The clubs will have no desire to embrace someone who goes on TV to proclaim that he has been falsely found to be doping, a claim which undermines the joint system, with the superficial claim that he has "no idea" how Turinabol entered his system. Rather than being seem as someone who displays remorse, Colabello will be regarded as someone who, once caught cheating, tried to undermine the testing policy with superficial lies.
That is why I would have advised Colabello that his best avenue is to tell the truth and admit that he deliberately used Turinabol, to express remorse for having done so, and to commit that it would never happen again. He appears to be taking the exact opposite course, which in my view is misguided.
I must admit I always hated chemistry as a subject and I'm certainly not going to try to understand the fine points of the latest testing.
Still, it's important to understand enough about the testing before talking about open minds.
We live in a world in which you get excluded from the jury pool if you happen to have any expertise in something relevant to a trial. It's done so that the court can introduce experts who the jury will listen to and based their judgment on. So it happens from time to time that the so-called expert is exposed as a hack and the whole affair gets dismissed having wrecked many lives.
Conte is one of those so-called expert. He offers color commentary. Not much more.
The real points are that the testing did get better and Colabello did have a steroid in his system that could not have gotten there accidentally. I don't understand why anyone would have a reasonable doubt on these points, but I appreciate that it's the reason a jury has 12 members and I'm glad we don't have to play a rendition of 12 Angry Men on this.
Still, it's important to understand enough about the testing before talking about open minds.
We live in a world in which you get excluded from the jury pool if you happen to have any expertise in something relevant to a trial. It's done so that the court can introduce experts who the jury will listen to and based their judgment on. So it happens from time to time that the so-called expert is exposed as a hack and the whole affair gets dismissed having wrecked many lives.
Conte is one of those so-called expert. He offers color commentary. Not much more.
The real points are that the testing did get better and Colabello did have a steroid in his system that could not have gotten there accidentally. I don't understand why anyone would have a reasonable doubt on these points, but I appreciate that it's the reason a jury has 12 members and I'm glad we don't have to play a rendition of 12 Angry Men on this.
If Colabello genuinely has no idea how the stuff got into him, the implication is that he is the victim of some pretty serious wrongdoing on the part of some pretty serious wrongdoer. I assume this would be a form of assault and that if he won't rest until he finds out the whos and the hows he really ought to be involving the police as soon as possible.
There's no point in any of us playing amateur toxicologists and trying to divine truth from the internet.
This is interesting coming from the guy who confidently declared:
Before you even move to the B sample tests, which in Colabello's case detected specifically the anabolic steroid Turinabol, you have to have failed the T/E ratio screen which is set at 4 times the usual amount of testosterone. As the Conte article pointed out, that's a low bar to hurdle.
Per Arden Zwellingäs article on SportsNet, you are incorrect.
One of Colabello’s defences is that his testosterone level at the time of his test was 1.04 nanomoles — essentially right in line with that of an average male his age, and perhaps even a little low for a professional athlete.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/big-read-blue-jays-chris-colabello-still-seeking-answers/
This is interesting coming from the guy who confidently declared:
Before you even move to the B sample tests, which in Colabello's case detected specifically the anabolic steroid Turinabol, you have to have failed the T/E ratio screen which is set at 4 times the usual amount of testosterone. As the Conte article pointed out, that's a low bar to hurdle.
Per Arden Zwellingäs article on SportsNet, you are incorrect.
One of Colabello’s defences is that his testosterone level at the time of his test was 1.04 nanomoles — essentially right in line with that of an average male his age, and perhaps even a little low for a professional athlete.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/big-read-blue-jays-chris-colabello-still-seeking-answers/
This is interesting coming from the guy who confidently declared:
Before you even move to the B sample tests, which in Colabello's case detected specifically the anabolic steroid Turinabol, you have to have failed the T/E ratio screen which is set at 4 times the usual amount of testosterone. As the Conte article pointed out, that's a low bar to hurdle.
Per Arden Zwellingäs article on SportsNet, you are incorrect.
One of Colabello’s defences is that his testosterone level at the time of his test was 1.04 nanomoles — essentially right in line with that of an average male his age, and perhaps even a little low for a professional athlete.
Yes, I was obviously wrong about that. The information that I relied on for the gateway T/E test was from a 2012 Hardball Times article . That has been eclipsed, as noted in one of the articles, and was changed in 2013 and 2014, at the players' urging, when longitudinal profiling was added, which from the article appears to mean that if a player's testosterone level has varied over time the 4:1 ratio need not be met.
As the article that you linked to indicates, which you chose not to quote, Colabello's normative testosterone level is of no assistance to Colabello, perhaps because he was taking it orally. The paragraphs following the one you quote read:
But this defence doesn’t work in his favour. Orally-ingested turinabol essentially mimics the action of natural testosterone, which tells the body’s ultra-sensitive feedback system that it doesn’t need to produce any more of its own.
If anything, testosterone levels generally would go down when someone takes turinabol because the body senses the drug generating testosterone for it
. “His testosterone reading is irrelevant,” Phillips says. “That’s not damning evidence in either direction. From the drug testing side of things, it means absolutely nothing.”
Before you even move to the B sample tests, which in Colabello's case detected specifically the anabolic steroid Turinabol, you have to have failed the T/E ratio screen which is set at 4 times the usual amount of testosterone. As the Conte article pointed out, that's a low bar to hurdle.
Per Arden Zwellingäs article on SportsNet, you are incorrect.
One of Colabello’s defences is that his testosterone level at the time of his test was 1.04 nanomoles — essentially right in line with that of an average male his age, and perhaps even a little low for a professional athlete.
Yes, I was obviously wrong about that. The information that I relied on for the gateway T/E test was from a 2012 Hardball Times article . That has been eclipsed, as noted in one of the articles, and was changed in 2013 and 2014, at the players' urging, when longitudinal profiling was added, which from the article appears to mean that if a player's testosterone level has varied over time the 4:1 ratio need not be met.
As the article that you linked to indicates, which you chose not to quote, Colabello's normative testosterone level is of no assistance to Colabello, perhaps because he was taking it orally. The paragraphs following the one you quote read:
But this defence doesn’t work in his favour. Orally-ingested turinabol essentially mimics the action of natural testosterone, which tells the body’s ultra-sensitive feedback system that it doesn’t need to produce any more of its own.
If anything, testosterone levels generally would go down when someone takes turinabol because the body senses the drug generating testosterone for it
. “His testosterone reading is irrelevant,” Phillips says. “That’s not damning evidence in either direction. From the drug testing side of things, it means absolutely nothing.”
As the article that you linked to indicates, which you chose not to quote...
Nice try. I quoted the passage that was relevant to my point.
Nobody, not even Colabello, is disputing that the test showed evidence of a banned substance having been in his system. You've chosen to not give him any benefit of any doubt about how it got there, and beyond that have been talking as if there is no room for any doubt.
I for one want to believe him and am rooting for him to succeed in finding evidence that proves he did not intentionally take a banned substance. I know it's a longshot that he'll succeed, and accept that it's entirely possible that he's simply lying. But I do feel there's room for doubt.
Nice try. I quoted the passage that was relevant to my point.
Nobody, not even Colabello, is disputing that the test showed evidence of a banned substance having been in his system. You've chosen to not give him any benefit of any doubt about how it got there, and beyond that have been talking as if there is no room for any doubt.
I for one want to believe him and am rooting for him to succeed in finding evidence that proves he did not intentionally take a banned substance. I know it's a longshot that he'll succeed, and accept that it's entirely possible that he's simply lying. But I do feel there's room for doubt.
You've chosen to not give him any benefit of any doubt about how it got there, and beyond that have been talking as if there is no room for any doubt.
....But I do feel there's room for doubt.
In order for me to give him the 'benefit of the doubt', as the phrase is being used, there has to be doubt in the first place. And in order for there to be doubt, there has to be another plausible or even conceivable explanation, other than the completely obvious one that he was cheating and took Turinabol, to explain how turinabol metabolites showed up in his sample. To this point, I've not heard anyone, including him, offer up such a scenario. And that's just dealing with the bare test itself.
Looking at the context, his story becomes even more ridiculous. Of all the PEDS to have somehow, inexplicably and mysteriously ingested by accident, he was just so 'unlucky' to have inexplicably ingested Turinabol, the same anabolic steroid that other players are getting busted for at the same time. Out of all the banned substances on the MLB/MLBPA list to "accidentally' ingest, what a wild and crazy bit of bad luck it was to have inexplicably ingested the vary PED that others are getting busted for.
Adding to the context of course, is his wild performance spike, going from a career Independent Leaguer to a major league star at age 32.
In order for me to give him the 'benefit of the doubt', as the phrase is being used, there has to be doubt in the first place. And in order for there to be doubt, there has to be another plausible or even conceivable explanation, other than the completely obvious one that he was cheating and took Turinabol, to explain how turinabol metabolites showed up in his sample. To this point, I've not heard anyone, including him, offer up such a scenario. And that's just dealing with the bare test itself.
Looking at the context, his story becomes even more ridiculous. Of all the PEDS to have somehow, inexplicably and mysteriously ingested by accident, he was just so 'unlucky' to have inexplicably ingested Turinabol, the same anabolic steroid that other players are getting busted for at the same time. Out of all the banned substances on the MLB/MLBPA list to "accidentally' ingest, what a wild and crazy bit of bad luck it was to have inexplicably ingested the vary PED that others are getting busted for.
Adding to the context of course, is his wild performance spike, going from a career Independent Leaguer to a major league star at age 32.
Dee Gordon just got popped too. Turns out Dee has taken an anabolic steroid 'unknowingly' as well. Maybe he can help Chris and the UFC guy get to the bottom of this.
So last years batting champion Dee Gordon has joined Cola on the sidelines for 80 games. His test revealed exogenous testosterone and clostebol.
And as with Cola, Dee stated "Though I did not do so knowingly, I have been informed that test results showed I ingested something that contained prohibited substances."
Was going to make some snarky comment about 'benefit of the doubt', but instead I'll hypothesize why players caught in testing don't admit to taking PED's knowingly.
As long as you don't know how it entered your body, there is no supplier. Once you do admit, questioning will shift to how and from where you obtained them. And no player wants to go that route, since there are zero benefits (MLB isn't going to give you a plea deal). Best just to go the old Sgt. Schultz route and know nothing.
And as with Cola, Dee stated "Though I did not do so knowingly, I have been informed that test results showed I ingested something that contained prohibited substances."
Was going to make some snarky comment about 'benefit of the doubt', but instead I'll hypothesize why players caught in testing don't admit to taking PED's knowingly.
As long as you don't know how it entered your body, there is no supplier. Once you do admit, questioning will shift to how and from where you obtained them. And no player wants to go that route, since there are zero benefits (MLB isn't going to give you a plea deal). Best just to go the old Sgt. Schultz route and know nothing.
What do Dee Gordon's and Chris Colabello's 2015 season have in common? Answer: a BABIP spike. Gordon achieved it with the aid of a greatly reduced pop-up rate. Colabello achieved it with the aid of a greatly increased line-drive rate. It's not how I would imagine steroids would work but I might be missing something.
As long as you don't know how it entered your body, there is no supplier. Once you do admit, questioning will shift to how and from where you obtained them. And no player wants to go that route, since there are zero benefits (MLB isn't going to give you a plea deal).
I have been thinking about the same thing this morning. The players are fed up with these guys and given that this a bargaining year, there may well be changes to the drug testing policy in respect of penalties. Some players are advocating a two year suspension for a first offence, which would have some heft to it but probably would not deter players whose career plans include PEDs, some of whom would otherwise not make the majors.
One possibility would be tighter cooperation between MLB's drug investigation office and the DEA. When the DEA showed up in the Biogenisis investigation, a career of Alex Rodriguez's lies dissolved in a NY minute.
Another possibility would be a two year suspension which could be reduced by exercise of discretion to one year, if the player is found to truthfully report his supply route. A player who receives such a reduction and who is found later to have withheld information, would be banned from the game. Something that encourages players to report their suppliers would also have somewhat of a chilling effect on the supply game.
I have been thinking about the same thing this morning. The players are fed up with these guys and given that this a bargaining year, there may well be changes to the drug testing policy in respect of penalties. Some players are advocating a two year suspension for a first offence, which would have some heft to it but probably would not deter players whose career plans include PEDs, some of whom would otherwise not make the majors.
One possibility would be tighter cooperation between MLB's drug investigation office and the DEA. When the DEA showed up in the Biogenisis investigation, a career of Alex Rodriguez's lies dissolved in a NY minute.
Another possibility would be a two year suspension which could be reduced by exercise of discretion to one year, if the player is found to truthfully report his supply route. A player who receives such a reduction and who is found later to have withheld information, would be banned from the game. Something that encourages players to report their suppliers would also have somewhat of a chilling effect on the supply game.
Talking about giving another chance to suspended and long-injured players, F-Mart is available, and aged 27-28
Jayson Stark in a recent espn article intimates that some of the current crop of steroid use is associated with endurance and rebuilding muscle rather than adding bulk and suggests reducing the schedule to 154 games to reduce the incentive. There is some similarity in the current usage of steroids with the old usage of greenies. Hat tip to John Lott for the link.
More on Turabinol from T.J. Quinn. It is interesting to know about the supplement and the testing changes.
Will Carroll believes that Colabello may be the victim of a contaminated supplement.
https://www.fanduel.com/insider/2016/05/15/additional-mlb-suspensions-point-to-possible-explanation/
https://www.fanduel.com/insider/2016/05/15/additional-mlb-suspensions-point-to-possible-explanation/
Ken Rosenthal makes a similar point about possible contamination here:
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chris-colabello-daniel-stumpf-ped-suspensions-positive-drug-tests-051416
A couple of excerpts:
Earlier this week, the agent for suspended Blue Jays first baseman Chris Colabello organized a conference call with doctors, scientists and molecular biologists who are experts on steroid testing. The agent, Brian Charles, participated on the call with Colabello, Phillies reliever Daniel Stumpf and former UFC heavyweight champion Frank Mir.
Stumpf said that one idea under discussion is the transferring of their samples from the laboratory in Montreal that handles baseball’s drug tests to another laboratory that would conduct a further examination. The players also might seek the transfer of medicines they submitted from an Aegis laboratory to another lab as another method of trying to determine the origins of their positive tests.
A couple of excerpts:
Earlier this week, the agent for suspended Blue Jays first baseman Chris Colabello organized a conference call with doctors, scientists and molecular biologists who are experts on steroid testing. The agent, Brian Charles, participated on the call with Colabello, Phillies reliever Daniel Stumpf and former UFC heavyweight champion Frank Mir.
Stumpf said that one idea under discussion is the transferring of their samples from the laboratory in Montreal that handles baseball’s drug tests to another laboratory that would conduct a further examination. The players also might seek the transfer of medicines they submitted from an Aegis laboratory to another lab as another method of trying to determine the origins of their positive tests.