| 0 |
Subject: Add Big Papi To The List
Posted by: Mith
- [2894309] Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 14:06
NYT: Ortiz and Manny named as two of the 104 positive results on the 2003 test.The information about Ramirez and Ortiz emerged through interviews with multiple lawyers and others connected to the pending litigation. The lawyers spoke anonymously because the testing information is under seal by a court order. The lawyers did not identify which drugs were detected.
Unlike Ramirez, who recently served a 50-game suspension for violating baseball’s drug policy, Ortiz had not previously been linked to performance-enhancing substances.
Scott Boras, the agent for Ramirez, would not comment Thursday.
Asked about the 2003 drug test on Thursday in Boston, Ortiz shrugged. “I’m not talking about that anymore,” he said. “I have no comment.” |
| 1 | Razor
ID: 371502414
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 14:13
|
Any more? D-bag. At least Manny got caught and served his time.
|
| 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 14:20
|
Manny got caught for taking drugs after 2003.
|
| 3 | Razor
ID: 371502414
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 14:25
|
Yes, Manny was caught and had to be punished, unlike Ortiz who was very likely cheating from 2003 to 2007, at least. Ortiz got away with it, but when it his positive test comes to light 6 years later, all he can say is that he doesn't want to talk about it anymore. Did I miss something? Have reporters have been hounding Ortiz about steroids up until now?
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 14:38
|
No, we don't know that Ortiz cheated after the test. In fact, the MLBPA agreed to testing after the 2003 test, under two conditions:
-the original testing results would remain secret to anyone outside the player, MLB, and the MLBPA
-there would be no action taken against players who tested positive.
The idea was that there would be a "baseline" of usage at that time. Stupid, of course--this is like criminals agreeing to take a complete crime survey with the idea that those committing crimes before the survey would get off scot free.
After 2003 the testing-with-repercussions began, and there have been no announced positive test (or penalties) of Ortiz as a result of those tests.
|
| 5 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 14:51
|
Right. Just like ARod...
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 15:23
|
No, not like ARod.
You take Baldwin to task on the Political Forum for making assumptions which can't be supported by the facts we know at hand. You can at least hold to the same standard here, yes?
We know Papi used up to the 2003 test. We don't know, from the 2003 test, that he used afterwards. And he hasn't been suspended by MLB for any tests afterwards, so we know that he passed them. That's all we know.
If Ortiz fails another test we'll have more information upon which to make a different judgement. Until then, don't be a Baldwin, MITH.
|
| 7 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 15:40
|
WTF are you talking about, PD?
You said, "After 2003 the testing-with-repercussions began, and there have been no announced positive test (or penalties) of Ortiz as a result of those tests."
Please show me how is this not also true for ARod? Perhaps you should get your facts straight before throwing around accusations. Sheesh.
|
| 8 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 15:44
|
You take Baldwin to task on the Political Forum for making assumptions which can't be supported by the facts we know at hand. You can at least hold to the same standard here, yes?...
Until then, don't be a Baldwin, MITH.
I expect that once you realize how foolish you were in that post that you'll be very eager to issue an apology in your response.
|
| 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 16:02
|
My understanding is that ARod admitted to taking steroids after the test in 2003 (and, there are accusations that he was tipped off by the MLBPA to the 2004 test as well).
Ortiz hasn't copped to anything yet.
|
| 10 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 16:18
|
Your understanding is mistaken.
ARod's claim is that he stopped juicing after an injury he sufferered during Spring Training in 2003. That precise date should be available if someone cares to do the legwork, tho it would likley be moot since to my knowledge, the specific date of ARod's test is not public info. The testing took place over the course of 2003 and the results (the percentage of positive results) was not released until November of that year.
So, no, ARod did not ever admit to taking steroids after the test in 2003.
|
| 11 | Electroman
ID: 565182111
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 16:22
|
It was the Selena Roberts book that claimed that he did. I just saw for the first time his nickname that his teamates in NY apparently gave him: B*tch Tits. Hilarious
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 16:25
|
Heh.
I took a quick look at an SI article that I remember reading, which stated that he used steroids from the 2001-2003 seasons. The test was before the end of the 2003 season as I recall.
The Selena Roberts book claimed he was using back in high school too. I don't care about the before--it is the after I'm interested in and I don't think she sheds any more light than ARod himself admitted.
|
| 13 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 16:28
|
Actually, there are more concrete dates available than I thought.
NYT 3/14/03Rodriguez, a five-time All-Star at shortstop who is in the third year of a $252 million, 10-year contract, complained of stiffness and fatigue in the shoulder after playing in Phoenix the last two days. He was scheduled for a day off yesterday and went to Dallas for tests after an examination by the team physician, Dr. Drew Dosett. NYT 3/7/03Tom Glavine arrived in the Mets' clubhouse at 8:30 this morning, ready to prepare for his start in this afternoon's exhibition game. Twenty minutes later, Glavine learned his pregame routine would include submitting a urine sample as part of the first phase of steroid testing under the new collective bargaining agreement.
The process the Mets underwent today is one that is being repeated throughout Arizona and Florida these days as the new testing procedures take hold. Twenty-six of the players on the Mets' 40-man roster were tested for steroids today by an independent testing firm, with the remaining 14 players to be tested in the near future. A follow-up test of the same players will be conducted seven days after the first one, to rule out false positives.
Players were not aware of when the tests would occur, only that the tests would come in March.
|
| 14 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 16:30
|
So...
Like I said, Right. Just like ARod...
I'm ready to graciously accept that apology now.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 16:35
|
I think you missed my point: ARod copped to using steroids (and, as far as I can tell, continued using for months after the test). Ortiz hasn't admitted anything, and we know nothing about his post-test uses.
Your apology will come when the facts actually match your point, MITH, not when you believe they already do.
|
| 16 | Razor
ID: 371502414
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 16:45
|
PD - I did not say Ortiz did cheat after 2003; I said it was very likely that he did. I suspect most juicers continued to cheat while the penalties were minimal. Some probably stopped when the punishments got harsh, but as Manny proved, some continued to do it. I suspect that Ortiz, given his relationship with Manny and his prodigious power numbers, was in that group. Either way, Ortiz is a cheater and I am glad it has come to light.
|
| 17 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 17:22
|
I think you missed my point: ARod copped to using steroids (and, as far as I can tell, continued using for months after the test).
Well it's true that I didn't respond to any unstated point you made. I just responded to what you wrote in post 4.No, we don't know that Ortiz cheated after the test. [we don't know that ARod did either] In fact, the MLBPA agreed to testing after the 2003 test, under two conditions:
-the original testing results would remain secret to anyone outside the player, MLB, and the MLBPA
-there would be no action taken against players who tested positive.
The idea was that there would be a "baseline" of usage at that time. Stupid, of course--this is like criminals agreeing to take a complete crime survey with the idea that those committing crimes before the survey would get off scot free. [obviously all of that is true for ARod if it's true for Ortiz]
After 2003 the testing-with-repercussions began, and there have been no announced positive test (or penalties) of Ortiz as a result of those tests. [again, same as ARod] Now I want my apology with a cherry on top.
|
| 18 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 17:30
|
Just please don't post a "Ortiz fails drug test" with WND as the source...please.
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 17:34
|
hahaha, rsf.
I suspect most juicers continued to cheat while the penalties were minimal
Yeah, so do I. In fact we know that to be the case--juicing was illegal starting in 1991, but there were no penalties in place.
|
| 20 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 30, 2009, 18:37
|
ESPN anounced that MLB made a statement saying that they never had the test results and it was the subpoena to the MLBPA that forced them to turn that over and where the leaks have come from. Therefore, they can't release the rest of the names even if they wanted to do so.
|
| 21 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 13:02
|
So we now know that most of the game's great sluggers of the early-2000's were on steroids: Ramirez, Ortiz, Rodriguez and Sosa, to name a few. Anyone with a brain feels that Bonds was too.
I know it doesn't make it right, and while Bonds' production during those years is undoubtedly tainted, does it amaze you any less how much he was STILL better than all of the rest?? If every player who hit 45 or more home runs in a season in this decade was on PEDs, then Bonds' Ruthian-like, out-of-the-stratophere numbers are still absolutely amazing in the context that all of the rest of the top sluggers were doing it too.
It was still wrong, but the more and more sluggers getting outed only reinforces how undeniably incredible Bonds' production was.
|
| 22 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 13:09
|
No argument, but we'll never know that it wasn't primarily a product of just having the best juicing program. For whatever it's worth, his physique did undergo a notably more striking change than most or all of the other known and likely users.
|
| 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 21:43
|
Arroyo "wouldn't be surprised" to be on the list.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|