ESPN: David Ortiz tested positive in 2003

[jmt57]

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.

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.

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.

 

[patsfanofNC12]

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.

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.

I agree with it all, and will say that if he truly was taking steroids I will admit I was wrong since I defended him so much earlier. But you have to wonder why he would have made such strong statements about a one year ban and that he should get one if he ever tested positive. Also agree that the people reporting this names are ruining the game and should be finding another career. In brighter news, Papi hit is 14th dinger tongiht and we won! THANK GOD WE BEAT THE A's!!!

 

[Disco Volante]

Great friggin post man.......stank fans better not chirp too loudly......f'kin hypercrites!

13 of those guys on at least one of the 4 championship teams.

 

[BadMoFo]

Cheaters! haha

**** red sux, its all about foozball

 

[sdaniels7114]

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.

Ortiz announced after yesterday's game that he contacted the union and they confirmed that his name was on the list. While its certainly true that he may not have violated the law since not all PED's are illegal, I think we can safely assume that Baseball only tested for things it banned. There's also the lack of a denial on Ortiz' part. He 100% definitely didn't come out and say he's never cheated. That's new BTW, he's always been unequivocal before. Now he's carefully parsing his words to the point that so far he's only released what has to be a carefully vetted written statement. He never shied away from actually talking before.

Couple that with the large amount of anecdotal evidence. Such as the fact that he was 3rd on the depth chart at first/DH when he arrived in Boston and how his numbers dropped like a rock when this tough testing program kicked in. Its not certain, but it ain't looking good.

 

[Synovia]

I think we can safely assume that Baseball only tested for things it banned. There's also the lack of a denial on Ortiz' part.

No, we can't assume that. The POINT of the 2003 SURVEY TESTING was to see what people were on and whether it needed to be tested for regularly. It was to get a baseline and see where the problems were. They tested for everything that could be tested for.


As to denial, hes said a couple of times that hes very surprised he tested positive for anything. Thats denial.



My guess? He tested positive for amphetamines. The timing of his heart palpitations and the timing of them announcing they were going to test for amphetamines coincides too much.

 

[Synovia]

how his numbers dropped like a rock when this tough testing program kicked in.

The testing program started in 2005.

OPS by year:
2003: .961
2004: .983
2005: 1.001
2006: 1.049
2007: 1.066
2008: .877
2009: .738

I don't see any dropoff in 2005. I see a guy who is getting older and starting to have problems. Ortiz's best years were right after they started getting tough with the testing.

 

[Real World]

So how's that Michell Report looking about now? Anyone still think Mitchell's report wasn't protecting anyone, or anything? Hmmm....

No one should be surprised at all. Disappointed for sure, but not surprised. I've said it before, that even Derek Jeter's name wouldn't surprise me. It would totally disappoint me if it were ever on that list. REgardless, these guys are human beings. More so, they are elite players, and competitors, who play for millions of dollars, on the largest stage in the world, for their sport. Guys will always want to be the best, and I bet most of these guys didn't think they were doing something all that wrong, as much as they felt they were simply "doing what everyone else was doing". I'd venture to guess that a lot of us would probably do the same, were we in a similar situation. At least some would.

 

[maverick4]

I don't see any dropoff in 2005. I see a guy who is getting older and starting to have problems. Ortiz's best years were right after they started getting tough with the testing.

Ortiz is declining right around the time players naturally decline (pre-steroids).
Nobody knows if he tested positive of steroids, or andro.

Arroyo just had an article in ESPN about he wouldn't be surprised if he himself tested positive for something back in 2003.

 

[Real World]

@ saying "only" then listing five players.

Also Ricky Bones was on the '96 team.

Ricky Bones was an animal. As in a total pig. In 1996 he pitched a whopping 4 games for the Yankees, with 1 start. His numbers? A world series winning 14.14 ERA, in 7 inning pitched. He gave up 14 hits in those 7 innings, and 11 earned runs, while posting a sterling 2.857 WHIP. Nice! If he was saucing, it was probably with tomato's. If not, he better have gone back to his dealer for a refund.

Seriously though, there were lots of Yankees on the juice list. Were it not a prevelent problem in the league, then there would be more taint to their trophies. When it was first in the news, I felt it did put a damper on all that they accomplished. However, will all that has come into play since then, The tarnish isn't as dark as it originally was. The people I feel bad for are the honest players, who had chemically enhanced players shortening their careers, and diminished honest production. Unfortunately though, we really don't know who those honest players were, since it seems everyone was worthy of suspicion

 

[Synovia]

Ortiz is declining right around the time players naturally decline (pre-steroids).
Nobody knows if he tested positive of steroids, or andro.

Arroyo just had an article in ESPN about he wouldn't be surprised if he himself tested positive for something back in 2003.

Well, Ortiz did make a couple of comments back around 2003 about having no idea what he'd taken while growing up/playing in the DR.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Ozzie Guillen made a few comments on this today ...

He said the kist needs to be released ... the whole thing is a "Yoke".

 

[efin98]

Wasn't Ortiz the guy who claimed a few years ago that the testing was racist against the Latino players?

I seem to recall him saying something like that...thought it was protesting testing too much, now we see why he was so vocal

 

[Boston Boxer]

Ortiz is a lying sack of crap. First he said he did not take anything. then he said he was "blindsided with the news he tested positive in 2003, when in fact the players union informed everyone that tested positive. He is a fraud and needs to be released ASAP.

 

[IcyPatriot]

The best line IMO was Nomar saying some guys said yes to being positive just to get the testing program approved.

:wha: Nomey ...

I think there's a few more Sox / former Sox on that list ... oh well.

 

[efin98]

The best line IMO was Nomar saying some guys said yes to being positive just to get the testing program approved.

:wha: Nomey ...

I think there's a few more Sox / former Sox on that list ... oh well.

He's covering his ass in case his name came out at some point...creates some plausible deniabillity among the names on the list

 

[Synovia]

Ortiz is a lying sack of crap. First he said he did not take anything. then he said he was "blindsided with the news he tested positive in 2003, when in fact the players union informed everyone that tested positive. He is a fraud and needs to be released ASAP.

The players union did not inform players who tested positive, hence why ortiz had to call this week and verify.

Plus, we have no idea what he tested positive for. It could have been amphetimines, it could have been andro, etc. Half the things that are disallowed in baseball, and tested for, were available at GNC in 2003. You test positive for Ritalin and you've violated the PED testing.

 

[Mayday Malone]

Have there been any Brewer's listed/ targeted? Just curious.

 

[Kontradiction]

Ricky Bones was an animal. As in a total pig. In 1996 he pitched a whopping 4 games for the Yankees, with 1 start. His numbers? A world series winning 14.14 ERA, in 7 inning pitched. He gave up 14 hits in those 7 innings, and 11 earned runs, while posting a sterling 2.857 WHIP. Nice! If he was saucing, it was probably with tomato's. If not, he better have gone back to his dealer for a refund.

Seriously though, there were lots of Yankees on the juice list. Were it not a prevelent problem in the league, then there would be more taint to their trophies. When it was first in the news, I felt it did put a damper on all that they accomplished. However, will all that has come into play since then, The tarnish isn't as dark as it originally was. The people I feel bad for are the honest players, who had chemically enhanced players shortening their careers, and diminished honest production. Unfortunately though, we really don't know who those honest players were, since it seems everyone was worthy of suspicion

This is a little off topic but... GOD I would give anything to be that chair in the middle pic in your signature during that photoshoot.