And it's in, Ortiz has been elected to the Hall

[steve B]

Originally Posted by MINES_MINT

The excuses being made on behalf of Ortiz and others such as Bonds and Clemens are just pathetic in my opinion. As fans and historians of baseball we should have integrity and respect for the game and expect the same from the players. Unfortunately, based on some of the responses I have read online, I am seriously beginning to question the character of the average baseball fan in modern culture.

When Ortiz first spoke publicly about his positive test, his response was "my results leaked because so many Yankees tested positive". Why wasn't his initial reaction to the article to deny that he had ever used PEDs in the first place? No defamation suit? No libel? In my opinion that initial reaction shows guilt, and no amount of walking it back will change that.

Manfred cosigning Ortiz for the Hall is just another blemish to his already questionable tenure as commissioner, and if you don't see the spin he put on this whole situation I'm guessing you've never hit a curve ball.

If integrity and respect for the game is your standard, then that has to apply to all involved.

A leak from un-named attorneys, corroborated by nothing.

I'm not sure about the other players, but Ortiz was never informed about a positive test, something you'd think they'd want to do.

Along with not being told, they couldn't tell him what he'd tested positive for. Which is in many ways the single most important piece of information. I can see not making it public, but not informing the player?

If they had the info, why not also release what each player tested positive for? To this day that has never happened. Some things that could be tested for are present in some pretty mundane stuff. Many over the counter supplements, at least one cyclist got in trouble over a poppy seed bagel....
So release that information.

The government got the info, and at least for Bonds the actual sample. (Note, only one sample, when every serious testing program takes two.)
The 2003 program didn't find anything, but the government testing sure did.

So right off, either the testing was for the wrong things, or was poorly done.


Having integrity and respect for the game would not be anonymously "releasing" information that was supposed to be confidential, and that wasn't properly done, making it unreliable.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'm not sure about the other players, but Ortiz was never informed about a positive test, something you'd think they'd want to do.

That's false. Ortiz himself has confirmed that he failed a test.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

That's false. Ortiz himself has confirmed that he failed a test.

"Nobody came to me after, nobody came to me before, nobody came to me ever to tell me that I test positive for any kind of steroids," Ortiz said in the WEEI interview. "This was just something that leaked out of New York. They have still no explanation about it. It was just, 'You're name was there.' I was like, 'Oh, ok. See how that works.' It's not up to me anymore, about the Hall of Fame. I think I did what I was supposed to. I worked extremely hard to represent (Boston) the way I did."

From this 2017 article. I wanted to find the similar quote from 2009, but the rash of new articles makes it harder to find than it was a couple weeks ago.

https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...icle-1.3180299

Also-
Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred said last year in Boston that when baseball and the union got the test results back from the 2003 survey testing, "we were well over the percentage necessary to trigger the (drug) testing."

But Manfred added that there were "double digits of names — so, more than 10 — on that list where we (the union and MLB) knew that there were legitimate scientific questions about whether or not those were truly positives."

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by steve B

"Nobody came to me after, nobody came to me before, nobody came to me ever to tell me that I test positive for any kind of steroids," Ortiz said in the WEEI interview. "This was just something that leaked out of New York. They have still no explanation about it. It was just, 'You're name was there.' I was like, 'Oh, ok. See how that works.' It's not up to me anymore, about the Hall of Fame. I think I did what I was supposed to. I worked extremely hard to represent (Boston) the way I did."

From this 2017 article. I wanted to find the similar quote from 2009, but the rash of new articles makes it harder to find than it was a couple weeks ago.

https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...icle-1.3180299

Also-
Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred said last year in Boston that when baseball and the union got the test results back from the 2003 survey testing, "we were well over the percentage necessary to trigger the (drug) testing."

But Manfred added that there were "double digits of names — so, more than 10 — on that list where we (the union and MLB) knew that there were legitimate scientific questions about whether or not those were truly positives."

Ortiz says result got leaked because he was from Boston. He has never once said the result was NOT a positive.

Manfred admits it was a positive when he says it may have been a false positive.

[Mungo Hungo]

So what are the general thoughts on Maris? The up-and-down of his HR totals are striking: 16-39-61-33-23. Of course, there could be various explanations for that. But I remember reading that his hair was falling out in '61 and that some people were attributing that to something other than stress. Is there any reason to think he was using performance enhancers, or was the technology just not there at the time?

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

So what are the general thoughts on Maris? The up-and-down of his HR totals are striking: 16-39-61-33-23. Of course, there could be various explanations for that. But I remember reading that his hair was falling out in '61 and that some people were attributing that to something other than stress. Is there any reason to think he was using performance enhancers, or was the technology just not there at the time?

I've heard the rumors, that he had forearms like Popeye. But I think it was expansion pitching that helped him in '61, along with others like John Blanchard and Norm Cash.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Mungo Hungo]

That would make sense, and surely that's a factor ... but between 1960 and 1961, the number of teams (and presumably pitchers) increased by 12.5%, and Maris' numbers, as well as as Cash's and Blanchard's went up by far more than that. At the same time, other stars, such as Killebrew and Kaline, had numbers that were in line with what they were otherwise posting during those years.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Ortiz says result got leaked because he was from Boston. He has never once said the result was NOT a positive.

Manfred admits it was a positive when he says it may have been a false positive.

Are you really stupid enough to claim a false positive is a positive?
Hey, lets do an experiment! Eat a poppy seed bagel, then take an opioid test like Olympic athletes take. Let me know how that goes for you. (It WILL test positive)

A claim of a leaked faulty test result that nobody has been able to provide details on in nearly 20 years is about as weak as it gets.

MLB never released details of what they tested for, or what was found and at what levels.
Neither did the Times.
Neither did Congress.
And supposedly they all had the data on the tests.

Any reliable testing program
A) Anonymizes the samples, after the person who collected the sample, it's just a number, no names. That limits any potential for lab corruption. Did MLB do that? Nobody knows.
B) Uses an A and B sample to mostly eliminate lab error. A positive A sample is then checked using the B sample.
c) Releases the information about what was found, and sometimes at what level. MLB did NOT do this with the 2003 testing. The info wasn't even given to the players who of all people would have a right to know. They didn't even give them that info when specifically asked for it by a player.
This is important, a couple examples.

Bicyclist tests positive for Testosterone, duh, he's a guy. Bicyclist tests positive for testosterone, nearly 3x the limit? Yeah, that's a problem. (Actually the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio, 4:1 is the limit, Landis was closer to 11:1.)

Snowboarder tests positive for Marijuana, loses gold medal. Appeals, says He doesn't smoke because he competes, but friends do and he's not giving up on his friends. Appeal shows that pot is not actually on the WADA list of banned substances despite being punishable by death in some countries. The ammount he had was close enough to the limit that it was possible that just being at a heavy enough party would put him there.
Guy doesn't end up losing his medal.
https://www.thespec.com/opinion/colu...e-hair.html?rf

MLBs 2003 testing program was just barely adequate to show more than 5% so they could start a real program in 2004 without the union getting in the way. It's not impossible that the lab found what they were paid to find. It was a joke of a program.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by steve B

Are you really stupid enough to claim a false positive is a positive?

A positive is a positive. The result of the test was positive. Was it a valid positive? Dunno. But the result of the test was positive. That was confirmed by Ortiz and Rob Manfred.

No amount of your immature name-calling will change that.