David Ortiz writes for the Players Tribune
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Consider the source of the NBC article (I won't even get into whether CHB is lying about what he said to Ortiz -- I'm fully willing to assume so). Calcaterra, the NBC writer, has whined about Ortiz being dirty for years, despite the fact that the 2003 positive test could've been for any number of things other than "steroids." I checked his Twitter feed when Ortiz's article came out and he was tweeting up a storm within minutes of it being published. He has an agenda. While it's a fair point that the amount of testing Ortiz describes sounds pretty substantial for someone who's never had a bad test during the official testing regime, I wouldn't assume that Calcaterra's article covers all the possible explanations for the amount of testing to which Ortiz claims to have been subjected. Hopefully someone with actual reporting chops and less of a chip on his shoulder will write a story on this (or not -- it might be best for this to just go away).
It looks like the Globe wants some clicks, Wilbur goes after Papi as well:
Boston.com Sox News @BDCSox 13m13 minutes ago
RT @GlobeEricWilbur: David Ortiz Can Craft a Tale, But Has Trouble Keeping His Facts Straight http://bo.st/1I21ihZ
I have an issue with Wilburs' hack piece, here he quotes Papi's description on how he learned that he was on a list:
“I’ll never forget coming into the clubhouse before a day game against Oakland in 2009 when a reporter came up to me and said, ‘Hey, you know your name is about to be on a list of steroid users on ESPN?’
Wilbur then follows later with:
"Maybe Ortiz was surprised that day when he saw his face on television, but he shouldn’t have been, particularly since he was quoted in The New York Times story that led to all the coverage on ESPN that summer."
http://goo.gl/3RJPvu
The above Times article was posted on July 30, 2009 (Thursday) just before the game and must have been updated later because it included a written statement by Papi that was released after the game (there is no time stamp of the original or updated versions.) The updated story was then in print the next day, Friday July 31.
I was at that game (my 46th birthday) and didn't hear anything while we pregamed a bit before at Boston Beer Works or even during the game. It was after the game we learned about it because it was all over TV.
The box score/write up on ESPN from the July 30 game includes:
"Hours after a reporter "blindsided" him with the news that he was on the list of more than 100 major leaguers who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003, Ortiz hit a go-ahead homer that sent the Red Sox to an 8-5 victory over the Oakland Athletics."Right now, I have no answers," Ortiz said in the clubhouse afterward, his eyes hidden behind dark sunglasses. "I'm going to get to the bottom of this."
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=290730102
Papi's version of the when & how he learned about the list has always been consistent. The pre and post game media hounding must have been off the hook that day, even by Fenway standards. Papi was trying to get answers on what was going on from his agent/Players Union et al before he wanted to talk about it with reporters. What is wrong with that? He then put out a written statement later that day.
Sure his comment about being tested 80 times is an exaggeration, but having MLB officials come to your house during the off season randomly at 7:30 am would be an issue for me and even a few times annually like that would seem excessive. Wilbur even implies Papi may have more tests then the average MLB player because he was considered a past offender and part of a "stepped up program."
Papi has a real concern his legacy is tainted and he has been put in a position where he can not defend himself as the records are sealed / destroyed never to be publicly disclosed. Hacks like Wilbur/CHB even smirk at Papi's claim of testing clean for a decade because of the existence of designer drugs and such.
CHB is a known shank and his self serving column is to be expected re Papi. This lame bandwagon pile on by another "columnist" at the Globe is complete garbage and lazy.
Boston.com Sox News @BDCSox 13m13 minutes ago
RT @GlobeEricWilbur: David Ortiz Can Craft a Tale, But Has Trouble Keeping His Facts Straight http://bo.st/1I21ihZ
I have an issue with Wilburs' hack piece, here he quotes Papi's description on how he learned that he was on a list:
“I’ll never forget coming into the clubhouse before a day game against Oakland in 2009 when a reporter came up to me and said, ‘Hey, you know your name is about to be on a list of steroid users on ESPN?’
Wilbur then follows later with:
"Maybe Ortiz was surprised that day when he saw his face on television, but he shouldn’t have been, particularly since he was quoted in The New York Times story that led to all the coverage on ESPN that summer."
http://goo.gl/3RJPvu
The above Times article was posted on July 30, 2009 (Thursday) just before the game and must have been updated later because it included a written statement by Papi that was released after the game (there is no time stamp of the original or updated versions.) The updated story was then in print the next day, Friday July 31.
I was at that game (my 46th birthday) and didn't hear anything while we pregamed a bit before at Boston Beer Works or even during the game. It was after the game we learned about it because it was all over TV.
The box score/write up on ESPN from the July 30 game includes:
"Hours after a reporter "blindsided" him with the news that he was on the list of more than 100 major leaguers who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003, Ortiz hit a go-ahead homer that sent the Red Sox to an 8-5 victory over the Oakland Athletics."Right now, I have no answers," Ortiz said in the clubhouse afterward, his eyes hidden behind dark sunglasses. "I'm going to get to the bottom of this."
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=290730102
Papi's version of the when & how he learned about the list has always been consistent. The pre and post game media hounding must have been off the hook that day, even by Fenway standards. Papi was trying to get answers on what was going on from his agent/Players Union et al before he wanted to talk about it with reporters. What is wrong with that? He then put out a written statement later that day.
Sure his comment about being tested 80 times is an exaggeration, but having MLB officials come to your house during the off season randomly at 7:30 am would be an issue for me and even a few times annually like that would seem excessive. Wilbur even implies Papi may have more tests then the average MLB player because he was considered a past offender and part of a "stepped up program."
Papi has a real concern his legacy is tainted and he has been put in a position where he can not defend himself as the records are sealed / destroyed never to be publicly disclosed. Hacks like Wilbur/CHB even smirk at Papi's claim of testing clean for a decade because of the existence of designer drugs and such.
CHB is a known shank and his self serving column is to be expected re Papi. This lame bandwagon pile on by another "columnist" at the Globe is complete garbage and lazy.
If there's any troll at the Globe less deserving of clicks/reads than Shaughnessy, it's Eric fucking Wilbur.
I won't click on it, but I'd appreciate a summary. The quote from the previous page of this thread says he doubts Ortiz b/c everyone else on that list has been proved to be users, and that the number of times Ortiz has been tested is in itself suspicious. Is there more, and what do you agree with?adam42381 said:
It's not particularly egregious IMO. At least as far as Shaughnessy goes. He basically says he should let this go, that there are inconsistencies in his story and that he has different memories of how it went down in 2009 between the two of them. My sense is that Ortiz is probably glossing over a few things and exaggerating some of it for effect and that CHB is being a stickler and reading the worst into those inconsistencies. He does, however, end by saying that the guy is a legend on par with other Boston heroes and that this doesn't really change that.
It is staggering the number of well-informed posters who believe David Ortiz is clean simply because David Ortiz insists he's clean. BALCO and Biogenesis taught us that modern PED's, concocted by knowledgeable chemists, go virtually undetected by even the most sophisticated testing methods. The Lance Armstrong defense no longer holds water with informed people capable of critical thinking. Too many professional athletes known to have used steroids at some point in their careers (Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, virtually everyone in Biogenesis and BALCO) never set off any alarm bells by testing positive for a banned substance. Hell, Manny was popped the first time around not for steroids but a well-known masking agent. Plenty of professional baseball players are taking something, yet only a handful of them actually get caught.
In the interest of full-disclosure, I could give a rat's ass if Ortiz is taking anything. I'm just tired of the fanboyism and chanting that goes on around here whenever this subject comes up.
In the interest of full-disclosure, I could give a rat's ass if Ortiz is taking anything. I'm just tired of the fanboyism and chanting that goes on around here whenever this subject comes up.
Duly noted.
You of course realize that in the same way you can write something off as "fanboyism" from those not capable of critical thinking, I can just as easily write something off as a knee-jerk attempt to seem like the smartest guy on the block and taking the easy path to appearing "impartial" by assuming he's guilty and not allowing for taking the whole story as even relevant.
Like a false flag designed to distract from a lack of much thought on your own part.
You of course realize that in the same way you can write something off as "fanboyism" from those not capable of critical thinking, I can just as easily write something off as a knee-jerk attempt to seem like the smartest guy on the block and taking the easy path to appearing "impartial" by assuming he's guilty and not allowing for taking the whole story as even relevant.
Like a false flag designed to distract from a lack of much thought on your own part.
Also, if the needed evidence to condemn is simply that we can't prove otherwise then by default we must assume (and apparently accuse) ALL players, since to my knowledge none have ever proven that they don't take steroids.
How is it fanboy-ism to believe someone in the absence of contrary evidence?
If that's where we're at, we've officially arrived at the true definition of 'witch hunt' - denial proves you've sold your soul to the devil and thus should be punished, while admitting you're a witch is proof of the devil and you should be... punished.
How is it fanboy-ism to believe someone in the absence of contrary evidence?
If that's where we're at, we've officially arrived at the true definition of 'witch hunt' - denial proves you've sold your soul to the devil and thus should be punished, while admitting you're a witch is proof of the devil and you should be... punished.
How are they *known* to have taken steroids during their career, but Ortiz isn't? Ortiz allegedly had that positive test, whereas Clemens is not known to have had a positive test.DieHardSoxFan1 said:
I think one thing we can learn from Lance Armstrong is that it's probably easiest for a steroid user to categorically deny use until the statute of limitations expires, then beg for forgiveness.
David Ortiz may have been on that leaked list, but it was as a smaller subset ... a select few that had inconclusive results. This is fact.
In addition, from this link: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/careless-david-ortiz-denies-steroid-apologizes-boston-red-sox-fans-teammates-article-1.395676
We have these quotes:
The problem here is that Ortiz cant have his name cleared because the results are sealed (and to me, if you tested positive because of a legal (at that time) over the counter supplement, you did nothing wrong). Also, the continued reporting and discussion of that event is: Ortiz the steroid user. Listen to talk radio, read the stuff written in the media, heck, look at the discussions here...but again, its most likely, based on the facts, that it was an inconclusive result based on a legal supplement.
In addition, from this link: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/careless-david-ortiz-denies-steroid-apologizes-boston-red-sox-fans-teammates-article-1.395676
We have these quotes:
So again, even way back when this was first reported, one could summise that yes, Ortiz was not injecting steroids in his body and his inconclusive result could be traced to a dietary supplement. So David Ortiz' story has not changed then and now. This isnt being a fanboy with my head stuck in the sand, all of this is absolute fact.
The problem here is that Ortiz cant have his name cleared because the results are sealed (and to me, if you tested positive because of a legal (at that time) over the counter supplement, you did nothing wrong). Also, the continued reporting and discussion of that event is: Ortiz the steroid user. Listen to talk radio, read the stuff written in the media, heck, look at the discussions here...but again, its most likely, based on the facts, that it was an inconclusive result based on a legal supplement.
See the problem here is that none of us are informed people capable of critical thinking. I mean, don't even get DHSF1 started on 9/11. We're sheeple, just accept it and hope he ducks in to guide us through avoiding it when he can.
What's wrong with just believing the guy, either? The only evidence of anything was his name supposedly being on a dubious list of maybe, possibly having something in his system 12 years ago. Everything he has done and said fits his story and he's always been a guy who just speaks from the heart all the time. Those people tend to be the truthful sorts.
Lance Armstrong had a ton of people speaking out against him. He was making secret meetings with known suppliers and when he speaks, he sounds like a politician. It's not red Sox colored glasses, because I don't think that would last 5 minutes on this board. I believe him because his story, mannerisms and history all fit. Until there is literally any evidence besides this one test that should never be referenced again anyway, even circumstantial, why wouldn't I believe him?
Lance Armstrong had a ton of people speaking out against him. He was making secret meetings with known suppliers and when he speaks, he sounds like a politician. It's not red Sox colored glasses, because I don't think that would last 5 minutes on this board. I believe him because his story, mannerisms and history all fit. Until there is literally any evidence besides this one test that should never be referenced again anyway, even circumstantial, why wouldn't I believe him?
This is where I am more or less. If the list is the only hard evidence on Ortiz, and he had one too many Dominican milkshakes when it was sort of ok enjoy them, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.drbretto said:
Plus the fanboy in me wants to believe him.
It's worth pointing out that supplements aren't regulated pretty much at all, and even someone who could read and understand the ingredients list perfectly would have no guarantee that the supplement inside actually contained those ingredients and nothing more.
Someone getting something they weren't intended to get from supplements is more than plausible.
Someone getting something they weren't intended to get from supplements is more than plausible.
DieHardSoxFan1 said:
I don't consider myself particularly versed in illegal pharmacology, but pretty much all PEDs that I'm aware of are testosterone analogs (steroids), blood doping/EPO, or acromegaly inducers (HGH). You could make a case for amphetamines, too, I guess. Most of these things are pretty easy to test for, with blood doping being the trickiest. Evading testing, however, probably has a lot more to do with dilligent.. ermm... sample preparation by the users than anything else.
If these drugs were so easily testable, I believe a lot more players would be getting caught than the handful we've seen. Of all the players embroiled in Biogenesis, Braun was the only one to have gotten caught through MLB's drug testing program (and he later got off on a technicality). The remaining bunch of Biogenesis players punished by MLB were suspended not for positive drug tests, but incriminating documents (receipts, checks, doping regiments) purchased by the Commissioner's Office from Biogenesis employees. It is my belief that the modern supply of drugs is so sophisticated, and leaves the body so quickly, that conventional testing, with some notable exceptions, is virtually powerless. How did Braun get caught? I have no idea. But the vast majority of players suspended for PED's, in the last handful of seasons, didn't test positive for a single drug test.Devizier said:
DieHardSoxFan1 said:
In the last handful of seasons, 40 players have been suspended for failed tests (see lists here). Fourteen players were suspended as a result of the Biogenesis scandal. Fourteen is not "the vast majority" of forty.
Your argument boils down to this: (1) you think that many players are doping, based on nothing; (2) you take the lack of evidence for (1) as evidence of a nefarious ring of secret chemists breeding uberplayers. Even if you absolutely have to cling to (1), couldn't the reason simply be an inadequate testing regimen (too few players, too infrequently)? There is no need to leap to explanations involving science you don't understand and facts you can't ever know. Making declarations for which the only defense is "it is my belief that..." makes you look like a crazy person.
Weren't Bartolo Colon, Melky Cabrera, and Yasmani Grandal part of Biogenesis, but weren't suspended then because it was presumed they'd already served suspensions for the same offense when they'd been caught by testing earlier?
Ortiz does have a legitimate gripe regarding the process. The details of the testing that were done in 2003 were supposed to be kept confidential as per agreement with the MLBPA. We still don't know what was tested, how, or what other players were found to have tested positive. Given that the test was more of a survey, there was no opportunity for players to challenge the evidence against them; nor was there even supposed to be a need for such challenges.
Sure, it's easy to dismiss the above as just procedural nonsense when it comes to Ortiz' guilt or innocence when it comes to PED's. And we really have no way to intelligently answer that question, nor does it seem likely we ever will be able to answer it in a way that satisfies the media and the fans of the Yankees. However, even if he was indeed a PED user, he still has a gripe given the way his situation was handled, no matter how much CHB wants to claim otherwise.
Sure, it's easy to dismiss the above as just procedural nonsense when it comes to Ortiz' guilt or innocence when it comes to PED's. And we really have no way to intelligently answer that question, nor does it seem likely we ever will be able to answer it in a way that satisfies the media and the fans of the Yankees. However, even if he was indeed a PED user, he still has a gripe given the way his situation was handled, no matter how much CHB wants to claim otherwise.
