Quote:
Originally Posted by dgo71
While we're on the subject of evidence, there were no failed "tests" (plural) when it comes to Ortiz. He was only ever named on the 2003 survey test that the league, and even those who conducted the test, have said contained many false positives. After 2003, Ortiz was tested multiple times per year under MLB's testing program and never once failed a test. Over 450 of his career homers and 100% of his All-Star selections came after 2003.
|
Absolutely true, I should have phrased it as "a failed test" instead of "failed tests". My point is made here - the board will leap to explain away failures and dismiss actual material evidence for Ortiz's guilt to let him off the hook, yet simultaneously leap to deny evidence is even needed to blame Clemens and complain if anyone asks for evidence.
MLB claimed false positive were possible after the results leaked (which is true, was true after, and is still true today). I think it safe to assume that failing a test is a piece of reasonable evidence one is guilty, not ironclad absolute proof, but very obviously actual evidence to use. It is more evidence than has ever been produced for Clemens' guilt, and both have highly suspicious career trajectories during the steroid era.