Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

Happy Patriots Day.  I expect some heavy usage today so please if there are any problems just let me know via twitter @sonsofsamhorn.  thanks folks.  nip

Photo

Will Ortiz Ever Set the Record Straight


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
29 replies to this topic

#1 Strike4

  • 70 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 10:29 AM

I had been surprised at the lack of news on this front, but this appeared in yesterday's in-depth article on David Ortiz's struggles at the plate:

QUOTE
Ortiz has perplexed some members of the organization who believe him to be so involved in his batting average that he forgot that the Red Sox defended him when his name was leaked last season as being part of the infamous 2003 positive-test list, even doing so, multiple sources within the organization say, to an embarrassing degree. Ortiz vehemently denied that he ever took performance-enhancing drugs, and the Major League Baseball Players Association held a news conference in New York to defend him, to this day the only player the union has gone out of its way to publicly support in that fashion. The treatment of Ortiz provided a sharp contrast to months earlier, when Alex Rodriguez admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs during his career.

"Several people were asking how we could be so supportive of David without all the facts," Werner told me. "My response was that we've always supported him, and if he says the things that are alleged were not true, that was enough for us."

Upon the news that Ortiz was on the list -- Ramirez, his partner in the Red Sox's lineup in the championship years, not only joined Ortiz on the leaked list but also served a 50-game suspension for violating the league's drug policy in 2009 -- sources said Henry, team president Larry Lucchino and Werner called a meeting with key Red Sox employees and announced an edict: Ortiz was innocent. He had done too much, been too valuable to the team and the community, meant too much to the franchise for the Red Sox to not take him at his word.

"We looked ridiculous defending him to the level we did, especially because he said he was going to get to the bottom of it and he never did," a team source said. "But that came from John Henry. He pretty much told us directly, 'David is one of us. He said he's innocent, and I believe him.' That was it. No questions asked. That said how loyal John is to David."

To the Red Sox, such solidarity within the climate of the steroids era represented the ultimate show of support for Ortiz, proof that the demons that haunt him are not emblematic of a larger campaign by the organization to turn the public against him.

"No one got off the steroid hook like he did," said longtime Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy. "No one had the union back them. He did. I wrote that we needed to have the facts about this, just like everyone else, and John Henry was so angry with me that we were finished. I said David Ortiz was dirty because his excuses were the same as everybody else's, and nobody believed them. And that was it between John Henry and me. He hasn't spoken to me in a year."


This is pretty explosive stuff and for once I think credit is due to Shaughnessy for going after the story.

Link to full article: http://sports.espn.g...m...&id=5194839

Edited by Strike4, 18 May 2010 - 10:30 AM.


#2 CR67dream

  • 4033 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 12:22 PM

What kills me is the lack of coverage that was given to the fact that Ortiz was on the list as an "inconclusive" test back in '03.

" Both the Players Association and MLB have stated that 13 results were inconclusive, including that of Boston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz(notes), who The New York Times recently asserted had tested positive for steroids in 2003."

Link, also available in MLPA thread in this forum

Shaughnessy can go fuck himself.

#3 Strike4

  • 70 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 12:56 PM

CR67dream, I think it's helpful to include the full quote of what you posted above, noting the words in bold:
QUOTE
MLB has contested the list’s accuracy, claiming only 96 positive tests were recorded by the union in 2003, not the widely reported 104 positives. Both the Players Association and MLB have stated that 13 results were inconclusive, including that of Boston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz(notes), who The New York Times recently asserted had tested positive for steroids in 2003.


This article is basically a series of allegations on behalf of MLB and the players' union:
"Legal experts say Novitzky likely created the McCarthyesque list"
"Peters said he believes Novitzky created the list"
"Many have assumed"

Then it cites a talking head attorney who is in private practice and it not affiliated with this case:
“I’d be surprised if there wasn’t an investigation.”

Well, this article is dated September 9th and there has not been an investigation, has there?

I am not trying to drag Ortiz' name through the mud, but one would think that if he had proof of his innocence he would be screaming it from the rooftops and John Henry would be talking to Dan Shaughnessy about it. There's been no news though. And Shaughnessy did John Henry a favor by not writing an article about how Henry hasn't spoken to him for a year. For a guy who many assume loves to stir things up unnecessarily, he seems to have have done the opposite here.



#4 JimD

  • 4414 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 02:15 PM

QUOTE (Strike4 @ May 18 2010, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am not trying to drag Ortiz' name through the mud, but one would think that if he had proof of his innocence he would be screaming it from the rooftops


Let's assume he is innocent - how does Ortiz 'prove' he didn't take PED's?

#5 CR67dream

  • 4033 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 02:36 PM

The link was there for all to read. I think it's incumbant upon the accusers to provide evidence that the MLPA and MLB are lying. Let's not forget that these tests in '03 were supposed to be confidential, and other than releasing all the names, which neither entity should or will do, what more could they say to convince those who don't want to be convinced? Considering Ortiz is the only player "outed" that either MLB or the MLPA has said this about, and the differences in the way they handled the situation from all the others, it sure seems pretty likely to me that this is exactly what happened. Not that it will matter to the vultures if it was inconclusive or not, they'll assume what they want to assume. And personally, I think all the players outed through the leaked list got entirely fucked over, and were wronged a lot more than anyone else in this saga. It's a fucking joke.

QUOTE
Well, this article is dated September 9th and there has not been an investigation, has there?


Do we know there is not some sort of investigation still ongoing? What we do know is that the media at large and specifically idiots like CHB would rather sling mud than do their own investigative reporting. Ortiz has said he didn't consciously or knowingly do steroids. He has also said he may not have been diligent enough monitoring his OTC supplements earlier in his career. I know people roll their eyes at that, but the fact is that's his story and he's stuck to it, and there is no proof to the contrary.

I'd also like to point out that CHB is full of shit to say that Ortiz got off the hook like no one else. Who is still talking about A-Rod? Who is still talking about Manny? They were caught red handed, and folks have moved on for the most part. The fact is that there is no evidence that Ortiz did anything wrong, and unlike most of the holier than thou set out there, unless and until there is, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. God knows with all the haters out there, basing his guilt on nothing but accusation and inuendo, and saying he's dirty because "his excuses were the same as everybody else's, and nobody believed them", someone's gotta ask for some friggin' hard evidence. Or in the case of members of the media, go the fuck out and find it.

Anyway, believe what you will, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that's all any of us have right now. Framing it any other way is nothing but ignorant blather.

#6 Toe Nash

  • 2759 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 02:46 PM

QUOTE
Who is still talking about A-Rod? Who is still talking about Manny? They were caught red handed, and folks have moved on for the most part.


This is key. The only people who still care about this are pink hat mouthbreathers. The games have been played and aren't going to be changed or have asterisks applied. Testing is in place and everyone with half a brain and an ounce of reason has moved on. CHB obviously has less than that, but we knew this.

#7 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9441 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 02:49 PM

QUOTE (Strike4 @ May 18 2010, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am not trying to drag Ortiz' name through the mud, but one would think that if he had proof of his innocence he would be screaming it from the rooftops and John Henry would be talking to Dan Shaughnessy about it. There's been no news though. And Shaughnessy did John Henry a favor by not writing an article about how Henry hasn't spoken to him for a year. For a guy who many assume loves to stir things up unnecessarily, he seems to have have done the opposite here.


You do understand that it's not logically possible to prove a negative?

But putting that aside, since both the union and MLB have come out and stated that Ortiz was one of the 13 inconclusive tests, I'm not sure what you want him to do. He can't "prove" his innocence. And any effort to do so will only make him look guilty, since most people - including most here - assume that he is, in fact, guilty.

Let's assume for a second that his reaction last year was genuine. It's understandable that in the heat of the moment, he would vow to get to the bottom of the story, but once the emotions cool and he sits with a lawyer and/or his agent during the offseason, he was most likely told that he's in a no-win situation and the best thing he could do was to let it go and just play ball.

#8 Strike4

  • 70 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 02:50 PM

I will just refer here to paulftodd's response to the initial threat about the leaked list because he says it much better than I can:
http://sonsofsamhorn...&...t&p=2568142

Here's the important part:

QUOTE
If he stopped taking the supplements he said was responsible for the 1st tests "inconclusive" result, he should have passed the 2nd test. MLBPA could have cleared this up very easily by explaining it this way, the fact they chose to muddy the water as lawyers do when their client is guilty, suggests guilt. If they were honoring the court order as they said, they should not have given Papi any information in the first place, so that's BS. Papi may have had an inconclusive 1st test, but it's the 2nd test that determines Pass or Fail.

Unless someone can link me to a quote from the MLBPA definitively saying Papis results after the 2nd test were inconclusive, I will disregard this.


That seems to be something Ortiz could use to clear his name - it seems to me that this is a kind of proof. And because this isn't a legal issue, but merely one of defending his reputation, the onus is on him to clear his name. That's the way it goes in the court of public opinion, as CR67dream points out (people will assume what they want to assume).

Edited by Strike4, 18 May 2010 - 02:51 PM.


#9 Strike4

  • 70 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (Average Reds @ May 18 2010, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You do understand that it's not logically possible to prove a negative?


How about MLB drug testing? Doesn't that prove a negative?

#10 Alternate34

  • 2461 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:05 PM

QUOTE (Strike4 @ May 18 2010, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I will just refer here to paulftodd's response to the initial threat about the leaked list because he says it much better than I can:
http://sonsofsamhorn...&...t&p=2568142

Here's the important part:



That seems to be something Ortiz could use to clear his name - it seems to me that this is a kind of proof. And because this isn't a legal issue, but merely one of defending his reputation, the onus is on him to clear his name. That's the way it goes in the court of public opinion, as CR67dream points out (people will assume what they want to assume).


You really don't understand the law do you?

It is very much a legal issue still. Just because a test result was leaked, doesn't mean, "Whoops! Cats out of the bag! Now everything can be released."

paulftodd doesn't understand the legal issue either, and he is being damn stupid with the whole lawyers muddy the waters only when their client is guilty. They leverage every advantage they can get because people will be stupid and draw conclusions based on specious evidence. Lawyers like to avoid that.

Additionally, he has no information about what the court order said. It makes sense that they would be able to inform Ortiz of any results as pertains to him and not of anyone else. That whole post is bullshit.

Really, we have some evidence that Ortiz's test was inconclusive. We have corroboration of that because he was treated differently than all other outed users. The evidence that he used is a list that no one has yet to see and that was compiled by a federal investigator. It is second hand evidence as compared to the original test results.

#11 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 24822 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:07 PM

also, keep in mind paulftodd got himself banned from this site for an unprecedented run of stupidity and mule-headedness. Citing to him is always a losing proposition.

#12 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 15981 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:11 PM

QUOTE (Strike4 @ May 18 2010, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How about MLB drug testing? Doesn't that prove a negative?


Yeah, and he has been tested like everyone else and has not had any issues.

Or are you suggesting that MLB fire up the Tardis, go back to 2003/4, and conduct a couple of random tests on 2003/4 David Ortiz?

#13 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 24822 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:15 PM



Hullo! I'm the Doctor, just pee in the cup David, that's a good fellow. Have a jelly baby!

#14 Strike4

  • 70 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:27 PM

QUOTE (Alternate34 @ May 18 2010, 04:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You really don't understand the law do you?

It is very much a legal issue still. Just because a test result was leaked, doesn't mean, "Whoops! Cats out of the bag! Now everything can be released."


I wasn't addressing the legal half of this since that was being discussed in the other thread. I tried not to comment on the legal details surrounding the leak (aside from the Yahoo Sports article, which posted by CR67dream) but instead wanted to focus on the topic of this thread. That said, this is an issue where the legal details can prevent Ortiz from speaking about the matter and clearing his name. I think that's where he left off when he was first identified, and that is likely still the case, but that doesn't mean people are going to just remain silent in the meantime. Shaughnessy has been quoted by ESPN, and there is also a quote from an unnamed Red Sox official, and both of these quotes raise the issue. I started the thread. I'm not implying that he needs to clear his name, I'm actually asking the question "will ortiz ever set the record straight"? Is it possible?

#15 Strike4

  • 70 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:33 PM

QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ May 18 2010, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
also, keep in mind paulftodd got himself banned from this site for an unprecedented run of stupidity and mule-headedness. Citing to him is always a losing proposition.


Oh dear...

Well, I started the thread because I was hoping somebody would be able to provide more info on the heels of Shaughnessy's insinuations and the quote from the unnamed Red Sox official, so I welcome all input. I think some posters have misunderstood my intentions and I have probably not made myself clear - I am not accusing Ortiz of anything, I don't care all that much about the steroid issue anymore, etc. I care about David Ortiz as a person who has made me happy over the years because of his play. He wants to clear his name and I hope he can. There just hasn't been any news about him being able to do so.

#16 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 15981 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:34 PM

QUOTE (Strike4 @ May 18 2010, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wasn't addressing the legal half of this since that was being discussed in the other thread... I'm actually asking the question "will ortiz ever set the record straight"? Is it possible?


Then the answer is that he will not clear his name because doing so most likely involves evidence that will be presented in MLB and the MLBPA's actions against the FBI, and by the time that evidence is in the public domain nobody is going to give a crap about what David Ortiz put into his body.

#17 Strike4

  • 70 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:36 PM

QUOTE (smastroyin @ May 18 2010, 04:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, and he has been tested like everyone else and has not had any issues.

Or are you suggesting that MLB fire up the Tardis, go back to 2003/4, and conduct a couple of random tests on 2003/4 David Ortiz?


I wasn't suggesting anything, I was addressing Average Red's statement that "it's not logically possible to prove a negative".

#18 CR67dream

  • 4033 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:38 PM

The problem is, you are assuming by your thread title that Ortiz has not already set the record straight. I'm sure that as far as he's concerned, he has. The fact that there are people with agendas who do not want to accept this is really not something he can do anything about. Unless and until someone proves he is lying, and there is actual evidence that he was a user, all this is nothing but sensationalist BS. I really don't know how much clearer this point can be made.

#19 Strike4

  • 70 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:57 PM

QUOTE (CR67dream @ May 18 2010, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The problem is, you are assuming by your thread title that Ortiz has not already set the record straight. I'm sure that as far as he's concerned, he has. The fact that there are people with agendas who do not want to accept this is really not something he can do anything about. Unless and until someone proves he is lying, and there is actual evidence that he was a user, all this is nothing but sensationalist BS. I really don't know how much clearer this point can be made.


Do we just assume that anybody who questions his innocence has an ax to grind? It's one thing when it's a reporter or Yankee fan or Shaughnessy - that happens all the time. But a "team source" who uses the term "we" and who talks of previously defending Ortiz but now seems to be disillusioned? I know a "team source" can be a disgruntled former employee or the batboy or something, but this is pretty unusual. I found that to be more noteworthy than the Shaughnessy part, actually.

Edited by Strike4, 18 May 2010 - 03:58 PM.


#20 CR67dream

  • 4033 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 04:19 PM

That's the point, none of this is noteworthy. It's a muckraking hack job that quite frankly, Bryant should be ashamed of. Anonymous team sources and CHB....yeah, that reeks of credibility. Again, if anything is noteworthy, here, it's that the asssertions of MLB and the MLPA about the test being inconclusive continue to be ignored and unreported. Eh, fuck it, regardless of your assertions to the contrary, it's obvious you want to stir the pot right along with the author and his "sources". I've wasted enough time here, get back to me when there is anything of substance to render a conversation useful.



#21 Strike4

  • 70 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 04:59 PM

QUOTE (CR67dream @ May 18 2010, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's the point, none of this is noteworthy. It's a muckraking hack job that quite frankly, Bryant should be ashamed of. Anonymous team sources and CHB....yeah, that reeks of credibility. Again, if anything is noteworthy, here, it's that the asssertions of MLB and the MLPA about the test being inconclusive continue to be ignored and unreported. Eh, fuck it, regardless of your assertions to the contrary, it's obvious you want to stir the pot right along with the author and his "sources". I've wasted enough time here, get back to me when there is anything of substance to render a conversation useful.


This is out there already, I didn't start the thread out of thin air. I would not have started the thread if not for the quotes in the article. If the topic is just boring and not worthy of any discussion that's fine, but to just brush it off as insignificant doesn't make much sense. It was on ESPN, that's pretty significant.

I've been a lurker here for six or seven years now and I think this is the first thread I've ever started. If I was a pot-stirrer I would have tried it before now.

#22 Kilgore A. Trout


  • My Little Pony Tale


  • 11411 posts

Posted 22 May 2010 - 09:18 AM

Forgive me if I am missing something here, but I just have to ask this: Has anyone ruled out the possibility that what Ortiz tested positive for was pot? It is on the banned substance list from what I remember, as ridiculous as that is. As much as I do not like to rely on stereotypes, Ortiz does strike me as a guy who would enjoy a nice spliff once and a a while.
If it was pot he tested positive for, then I can see why everyone- MLB, the union, Ortiz himself, reacted the way they did. He can't admit to smoking up, because as much pot is not a performance enhancer (or even wrong in some people's eyes) it is still a felony and MLB has an image to protect. They wouldn't let Ortiz just say that he tested positive for a bong he and Pedro shared in the dugout during a rain delay even if he wanted to. Yet I could see them standing with him more than any of the other players outed so far as they did because in their heart of hearts they know that he should never have been tested for marijuana in the first place.
Again, forgive me if I am missing something here. I came to the lounge to see if there was anything new on the HGH blood tests and just stopped in here quick. I see the that test on Ortiz has been said was inconclusive, and that he wasn't found positive for any particular substance (I think that is what everyone is saying if I have read the thread posts right), so I suppose that means they couldn't know what he 'tested' for one way or another. But still, I've always wondered what possible PED a fairly non athletic built guy like Ortiz could possibly have taken.

#23 Billy R Ford


  • douchebag q momfingerer


  • 625 posts

Posted 22 May 2010 - 12:13 PM

QUOTE (Kilgore A. Trout @ May 22 2010, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
He can't admit to smoking up, because as much pot is not a performance enhancer (or even wrong in some people's eyes) it is still a felony and MLB has an image to protect.


I'm sure if Barack Obama can admit to smoking weed, David Ortiz can. It's not a felony here in Massachusetts. FWIW, the MLBPA didn't stop Tim Lincecum from issuing an apologetic statement after he was caught last October.

#24 Kilgore A. Trout


  • My Little Pony Tale


  • 11411 posts

Posted 22 May 2010 - 04:49 PM

QUOTE (Billy R Ford @ May 22 2010, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm sure if Barack Obama can admit to smoking weed, David Ortiz can. It's not a felony here in Massachusetts. FWIW, the MLBPA didn't stop Tim Lincecum from issuing an apologetic statement after he was caught last October.


Lincecum happened after Ortiz. And he was caught with a joint in his possession. It would've been hard to spin that differently. And he still didn't exactly come out and say his glove is made of hemp fiber or anything. He just played it off as a one time dumb kid mistake right?
And Obama admitted to smoking pot decades ago. Not exactly the same thing as admitting to being current best buds with Bill Maher.
Hey, I'm not saying that's what Ortiz tested for. But all the reactions by everyone at the time seem to make sense to me if it was. I was actually kinda surprised he didn't say that was what he got caught for at the time, even if it isn't true.


#25 CR67dream

  • 4033 posts

Posted 23 May 2010 - 09:54 PM

For crying out loud, it wasn't pot. Pot is not a PED and was not part of the 2003 experiment with PED testing. In fact, a quick look here would have told you that marijuana is classified as "a drug of abuse", not a PED, and has a completely different (and much less severe) consequence, and according to this article on Josh Hamilton's 2004 suspension, players can not be suspended for use/possession of marijuana. That seeems to be confirmed here as well. And where is testing positive for marijuana a felony? Even simple possession is a misdemeanor, and less than that in a lot of places right now. There is absolutely no way that it was pot, none. Zip, zero, nada.

#26 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3445 posts

Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:33 AM

If I recall correctly, Ortiz certainly noted that the possible positive could well have come from a substance ingested legally outside of the US, at a time when there was no specific anti-doping policy in MLB preventing use of such a substance...in other words, a substance not taken in violation of US law, or in violation of MLB rules at the time.

Specifically, he noted that level of quality control and clear labeling on supplements sold in the Domincan Republic was poor and that cross contamination was certainly possible. Since MLB had no clearly communicated anti-doping policy and testing, there wasn't any particular need for Ortiz or any other player to take the level of care to avoid potentially cross-contaminated products that athletes in other sports who were subject to WADA style testing should.

#27 rman726

  • 56 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 10:59 PM

delete please.

Edited by rman726, 26 May 2010 - 11:05 PM.


#28 CR67dream

  • 4033 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 11:52 PM

Edit:

I wasted too much time with this to just delete what remains of the above post. Basically, the poster was equating the reference to Ortiz's test being "inconclusive" to posters using a "savior word".

Savior word? Give me a fucking break. This isn't a fanboy "no way he used" argument. I pointed it out because the reports were originally that Ortiz tested positive. Apparently, he did not. Whatever the difference in the liklihood that he used PED's, the least the guy is owed is accuracy in reporting, and the scribes haven't actually bent over backwards to "set the record straight", to borrow a phrase. People will believe what they believe, that's fine, but it's kind of nice to have all the correct information available when forming an opinion, don't you think?

As I said earlier, I think all the guys who were outed in this clusterfuck got entirely hosed. They agreed to the anonymous testing, and got sold down the river. I don't even care who used anymore, it was so fucking rampant that there is no player from the era who would come as a shock. Clemens, Bonds, Rodrigez, Magwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco, Ramirez.... need I go on? I'm not arguing from the standpoint that Ortiz was clean, and I don't really much care. The difference is that in the cases I mentioned above, there is hard evidence of use. My main bitch about the whole thing is that with Ortiz there isn't. There is a reason both the union and MLB reacted differently than to all the others. Even more to the point, I think anyone who has to answer for their presence on that particular illegal list for any test, positive, inconclusive, whatever, had their rights trampled by the illegal process, and that bothers me a whole hell of a lot more than who used PEDs. The breach of confidentiality for all involved in this fiasco is simply a thousand times more disturbing to me than baseball players who clearly juiced, never mind those who maybe, or even probably juiced.

#29 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5013 posts

Posted 08 June 2010 - 04:20 PM

QUOTE (CR67dream @ May 26 2010, 10:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As I said earlier, I think all the guys who were outed in this clusterfuck got entirely hosed. They agreed to the anonymous testing, and got sold down the river. I don't even care who used anymore, it was so fucking rampant that there is no player from the era who would come as a shock. Clemens, Bonds, Rodrigez, Magwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco, Ramirez.... need I go on? I'm not arguing from the standpoint that Ortiz was clean, and I don't really much care. The difference is that in the cases I mentioned above, there is hard evidence of use. My main bitch about the whole thing is that with Ortiz there isn't. There is a reason both the union and MLB reacted differently than to all the others. Even more to the point, I think anyone who has to answer for their presence on that particular illegal list for any test, positive, inconclusive, whatever, had their rights trampled by the illegal process, and that bothers me a whole hell of a lot more than who used PEDs. The breach of confidentiality for all involved in this fiasco is simply a thousand times more disturbing to me than baseball players who clearly juiced, never mind those who maybe, or even probably juiced.

I'm 100 percent in agreement with you on this. The sad thing is, this is the real news story here. This is the issue the general public, news media, and Congress should care about.

I have always been for testing and strict punishments for PED use. I am totally against the witch hunt to uncover anyone who might have used PED's prior to testing existing during an era in the game when the league all but encouraged PED use. The fact that this witch hunt has led to serious violations of rights inherent to our legal process is of far greater concern to me, and should be to everyone, than the other 90 names on a list that no one was ever supposed to see.

#30 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 19177 posts

Posted 08 June 2010 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (JakeRae @ Jun 8 2010, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The fact that this witch hunt has led to serious violations of rights inherent to our legal process is of far greater concern to me, and should be to everyone, than the other 90 names on a list that no one was ever supposed to see.

Meh. This thread, and the public debate more generally, is not a court of law, but a court of public opinion. The inability of a players' union, MLB baseball, or a court of law to enforce their legal authority to protect the names of cheaters is of interest, but considerably less interest, than who cheated. I'm still waiting for the other 90, and assume every player guilty until proven innocent. That's...











GUILTY! Guilty, Guilty, GUILTY!