- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 19,321
- Reaction score
- 12,944
First of all as of this moment this is pure speculation; none of us truly knows if that NYT report is factual or as has been the case with many of their other stories in recent years, totally worthless. Second, if Ortiz really is on the list we don't yet know exactly what PED it was for right now. For example last year several NFL players were suspended not for taking a performance enhancing drug, but for taking an over the counter supplement that tests out as a masking agent; for all we know it could be a similar situation.Steroids and other PED's that require a doctor's order were added to Baseball's banned substance list at least as early as 1991. Obviously taking these drugs at the direction of a doctor is different. They were made illegal in the 80's. So make no mistake about it, this was against US law and Baseball's rules a long time ago. I have to wonder if the rat who's killing this game with 100 paper cuts can be punished since he's reporting illegal activity. I don't think there's such a thing as a non-disclosure contract that bans a person from reporting a crime.
Anyway Ortiz's comments leave me reeling. I was heartbroken when he struggled early this season, now I feel like a chump.
As far as a non-disclosure that bans the reporting of a crime, I didn't see any of the people with this information going to a district attorney or ploice station. This had nothing to do with criminal activity, and even if it did it would be inadmissable in a court of law. This is the NYT seeking to profit from a "tsk, tsk" finger-pointing story. In my opinion they first used Rodriguez, and now Ortiz with an accusation that is impossible for those players to defend. Even if they want to try and clear their names they're not going to be allowed to use information from those tests. Furthermore MLB and the player's union are not going to say "yes they were" or "no they weren't" on the list; if they did, then every newspaper could accuse every player that played that year until the entire list was revealed.
The only way to disprove the NYT claims is to publicly reveal the list of players that tested positive and there is no way that can legally happen unless the MLB player's union as well as every player on that list agrees to it. And even if Rodriguez or Ortiz were to sue for defamation of character then the NYT will simply claim freedom of the press and their right to not reveal their sources. Because of the way the original agreement was laid out between MLB and the player's union they can get away with any accusation made by anybody that claims to have seen the list. End result being that players like Rodriguez and Ortiz are found to be guilty in the court of public opinion without any opportunity of rebuttal or chance to face their accusers.
I'm not just saying this as a homer defending Ortiz; I still think A-Rod got a raw deal as well. And I will go so far as to say that due to the circumstances of the original agreement, even if it was true with either one of them, then I believe that information had no business being made public.
In my opinion the biggest crime in this story is either the person who revealed this information to the Times, or the reporter that fabricated the story.