bayside wrote:Anyone know if the current agreement allows MLB to store/freeze samples from a current year, for testing at a later date? Just wondering if new tests could be performed on old samples as technology develops for more effective procedures.
Or are the specific types of tests allowed outlined in the CBA?
There's nothing in the MLB Joint Drug Prevention program that describes a feature of that sort, a biological passport. It makes all the sense though; Lance Armstrong citied that as the sole reason why he got caught with doping. They collected his urine samples from previous and re-tested for EPO. He got caught with EPO in all the years he's competed in the Tour De France
The PDF of the Joint Drug Prevent Program here. Basically this is what the player's union agreed to, and what the MLB is limited in power to
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems the agreement was written by a lay-person from MLB (who has little to no knowledge of chemistry), and it's rather full of loopholes for a drug testing program.
This section from the Drug Prevent Program would be more biting if it were expanded to include testing collected samples from previous years, to create a biological passport or so
Testing will be conducted only pursuant to a scientifically-validated test. If a
scientifically-validated test is not currently available for a Prohibited Substance, but
becomes available during the term of this Program, testing will be conducted for that
Apparently that just means if they found a new test for a drug, they'll automatically add it on to the current series of tests being performed that year, and there's no retroactive applications. So, I'm extrapolating here as a non-lawyer, if an athlete was using some sort of brand new PED, as long as he stopped usage of it, before they started testing for that new PED, he would get off scott free. Baseball has to announce what substances they're additionally testing to not upset the baseball union, so it's basically turns a drug testing into an IQ test
ESPN reported Braun's urine which tested positive for the extraordinary high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio was re-tested, and a synthetic steroid was found. I don't know why MLB didn't choose to pursue that case again, or let the labs finish their analysis before going after him. Even if improper procedure was followed for the T:E ratio, that can't hide that a synthetic steroid was found in his urine. /rant.
The machine they use to detect synthetic steroids isn't obscure or anything. It's the cornerstone of analytical chemists, biochemists; it's what they use in the lab frequently. Liquid chromatography–mass spect machines. They're accurate to like 99.9999% to detect toxins in a river or identifying an unknown reagent. I've only had experience with Liquid Chromatography machines, and they give results in less than an hour so. If they have a machine that's calibrated and a good control sample, then the results are clear as day.