PDA

View Full Version : Somebody get David Ortiz a tutor, please.



texasdave
08-01-2009, 02:31 PM
David Ortiz was "blindsided" by this revelation? Is he serious? First, he knows his name is on that list. Second, he knows big names off that list are being leaked. Third, he knows he is a big name. Connect those dots, Big Papi. Are you telling me that he didn't put 1+1+1 together and come up with 'Big Papi is busted'? Tutor, please. Bronson Arroyo figured it out. Whether this is right or wrong, fair or unfair, Ortiz had to have an inkling. Epiphanies can be rough.

From CNNSI:




David Ortiz said he was "blindsided" by the disclosure, but acknowledged the players' union confirmed he tested positive.
AP



BALTIMORE (AP) -- Boston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz fended off further questions Friday about his 2003 drug test, saying he needed more time to gather information.

"I am trying to find out what's going on. When I get my stuff together, I'll let you guys know," Ortiz said before the Red Sox faced the Baltimore Orioles.

The New York Times, citing unidentified lawyers with knowledge of the results, reported Thursday that Ortiz and former teammate Manny Ramirez were among the 104 players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs six years ago. The list was supposed to be confidential.

Ortiz said Thursday he was "blindsided" by the disclosure, but acknowledged the players' union confirmed he tested positive.

"The process needs to play out," Red Sox manager Terry Francona said. "And that's hard, because there are probably going to be a lot of opinions the next few days about David's situation without the information that is needed."

"We need to get to the bottom of this. There does need to be answers, I agree, but they're not there yet, so we have to be patient."

Rob Manfred, Major League Baseball's executive vice president of labor relations, said all players take at least two drug tests a year.

"It should be noted that the recent revelations about positive results during survey testing are six years old," he said.

Los Angeles Dodgers manager Joe Torre, in Atlanta for his team's game against the Braves, criticized the timing and the fashion in which names from that 2003 test have been leaked.

"All this stuff is ancient history. They're talking about six years ago," Torre said. "It's something that obviously certain people have access to and they're choosing to systematically have fun with it."

Torre did, however, understand why the stories keep making news.

"You can't ignore this," he said.

BluegrassRedleg
08-01-2009, 05:50 PM
Are we sure they know in advance? He may have found out after it was revealed. It sounds to me like Arroyo is in the same boat.

Plus Plus
08-01-2009, 05:53 PM
Why does it matter if they tested positive for something in 2003 that wasn't against MLB rules until 2004 or 2006?

GIDP
08-01-2009, 05:55 PM
Are we sure they know in advance? He may have found out after it was revealed. It sounds to me like Arroyo is in the same boat.

Supposedly player who tested positive were told they tested positive.

FlyerFanatic
08-01-2009, 05:56 PM
Why does it matter if they tested positive for something in 2003 that wasn't against MLB rules until 2004 or 2006?

pretty sure steroids were banned back in the early 90's they were just never tested for...

GIDP
08-01-2009, 05:58 PM
Killing someone isnt against MLB rules either.

GIDP
08-01-2009, 05:58 PM
pretty sure steroids were banned back in the early 90's they were just never tested for...

They were banned in baseball. Union never allowed testing.

Plus Plus
08-01-2009, 06:02 PM
pretty sure steroids were banned back in the early 90's they were just never tested for...

Steroids were banned in 1991 and not extensively tested for until the BALCO scandal. You are right on this one. But doesn't part of the blame have to go to Selig or MLB, as well as the player using the banned substance? Hard to blame players if the knew that they wouldn't be caught...

And what about other PEDs? I can't imagine the entire 2003 list is for steroids. And if it is, how much weight does Bronson's commentary on his "drug use" carry?

Jack Burton
08-01-2009, 06:10 PM
Why were there no Red Sox on the mitchell report? Garbage report, the whole team was juicing, that's how they stole those world series rings.

BluegrassRedleg
08-01-2009, 06:25 PM
Why does it matter if they tested positive for something in 2003 that wasn't against MLB rules until 2004 or 2006?

Depends on what the context is.