11/23/24
August 08, 2009
Big Papi press conference: David Ortiz said supplements and vitamins may have caused his placement on the 2003 list of MLB players who failed drug tests.
Link seems to be broken.
posted by tommybiden at 03:58 PM on August 08, 2009
Changed the link.
posted by justgary at 04:01 PM on August 08, 2009
Thank you. My question is, "vitamins?" Uh-oh, keep me away from doctors!
posted by jjzucal at 04:23 PM on August 08, 2009
Actually, if you read the second half of that article it seems to imply that the 2003 tests were actually two tests: an unexpected test, and a later test where the players were advised to avoid all supplements and nutrition/energy drinks for 7 days. This apparently was to have a paired two tests and be better able to filter the "I took a legal GNC-type drink that have contained legal supplements that may mislead with symptoms affiliated with harder steroid use" with "I have been injecting illegal steroids for some time" since the latter would apparently not clear up after 7 days without supplements.
What Ortiz seems to be claiming- and actually, I believe him- is that he never took steroids, but he did use GNC-style supplements that were legal, and which may have caused him to get a positive rating on the unannounced test but that he may not have failed (got a positive result) on the 7-day cleanse test. If that's the case, his result would be listed as "negative" but that his name might still be on a list of people who tested positive on at least one test. Apparently those who did test positive on both tests were privately contacted by the doping agency, and that's why Ortiz is claiming he's surprised to have been called out as being on the list.
Apparently, because these results are sealed and technically we're not supposed to know any of these names, it puts Ortiz in the position that he claims he's innocent, but can't actually see the results to prove his case. And again, we're not supposed to know any of these names, so this whole thing seems sketchy: people are on some hidden, illegally revealed list of player names which may not even be accurate, but can't get access to the details to defends themselves.
posted by hincandenza at 05:42 PM on August 08, 2009
Well said, hincandenza. Easy for all to judge, but nobody really has all the facts and we don't even know which facts we do have since they were released partially and illegally.
posted by kokaku at 07:44 PM on August 08, 2009
Enough with this crap already.
Why will baseball not just go ahead and post the damn list?
This slow burn can't be any better than having to deal with the list. Some of the biggest names in the game have been confronted with this, and we've moved on.
Drives me crazy
posted by dviking at 02:56 AM on August 09, 2009
You know what is sketchy? Sketchy.
Fact is, we have lots and lots of facts.
posted by 86 at 09:45 AM on August 09, 2009
So what's Manny's excuse?
posted by MKUltra at 11:34 AM on August 09, 2009
The new information about the 2003 tests is interesting. And it's not impossible that Ortiz triggered a positive test through supplements and nutrition/energy drinks.
But what is troubling is that Ortiz can't name what he was taking, and in my mind casts doubt on his claims.
posted by justgary at 01:45 PM on August 09, 2009
If that's the case, his result would be listed as "negative" but that his name might still be on a list of people who tested positive on at least one test. Apparently those who did test positive on both tests were privately contacted by the doping agency, and that's why Ortiz is claiming he's surprised to have been called out as being on the list.
Wow. Really? Isn't a much simpler explanation that he's lying, just like the rest of them?
posted by cjets at 03:53 PM on August 09, 2009
Riiiight!! Suuuure!! Did that sound a bit skeptical? There's a big difference when a guy like A-Rod, who has always put up big numbers since his days with Seattle but when Big Papi was with the Twins for his first 6 years in the league, the highest amount of homers he put up was 20 but the very next season when he's in Boston, he hits 31, then 41 and the hits kept getting bigger? If he were that productive, the Twins would never got rid of the guy.
posted by BornIcon at 07:26 AM on August 10, 2009
You know what is sketchy? Sketchy.
I don't see what's so sketchy here. It's not like his power went away, just his contact.
posted by tron7 at 10:36 AM on August 10, 2009
I don't see what's so sketchy here. It's not like his power went away, just his contact.
Take a good look at his numbers the first 6 years of his career. For a guy his size, he didn't have the kind of power with the Twins that he displayed his very first season with the Red Sox. Suddenly he became a power hitter because he changed uniforms? If A-Rod and those 103 other guys are guilty for being on "the list", Big Papi can keep on smiling but he's just as guilty. Whatever he's selling, I'm not buying.
posted by BornIcon at 11:03 AM on August 10, 2009
Why will baseball not just go ahead and post the damn list?
Hasn't this been covered a million times already?
Because they made a deal with the players to test under anonymous conditions. I agree it's frustrating to have "selected" names be leaked, but it's not fair to the players to release all the names because of some lawyers with an axe to grind.
What they really should do is release the names of those who leaked from the list, and have them disbarred (if not indicted, since I think what they did is illegal).
posted by MKUltra at 11:29 AM on August 10, 2009
But what is troubling is that Ortiz can't name what he was taking, and in my mind casts doubt on his claims.
It was six years ago. All that crap sounds the same anyway. And, once again, athletes are not necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed. I admit that I am likely a dupe.
posted by bperk at 12:23 PM on August 10, 2009
Suddenly he became a power hitter because he changed uniforms?
He went from 20 homeruns to 31 at age 26-27. I don't find this shocking or even surprising. I watched him alot that last year in Minnesota and I never got the impression that he was short on power and I was sad to seem him go to the Sox.
posted by tron7 at 02:27 PM on August 10, 2009
he didn't have the kind of power with the Twins that he displayed his very first season with the Red Sox. Suddenly he became a power hitter because he changed uniforms
He left the Twins (and they let him go) because he refused to be the opposite-field hitter Tom Kelley insisted he should be. Not that that perfectly explains away the change in results, but to suggest the only possible change in Ortiz's performance is drugs is incorrect.
posted by yerfatma at 02:57 PM on August 10, 2009
He went from 20 homeruns to 31 at age 26-27
Oh, ok. So the older he got, the more power he "developed"? In A-Rod's case, his numbers have always shown that he can hit for power, not 6 years into his career as with David Ortiz.
I never got the impression that he was short on power
Really? So him hitting just 20 homers in his career with the Twins, then 31 the following year with the Red Sox doesn't raise any suspicion with you? It does to me considering that he's hit more homeruns while being a teammate with Man-Ram than he has ever done with the Twins.
posted by BornIcon at 05:01 PM on August 10, 2009
There's a big difference when a guy like A-Rod, who has always put up big numbers since his days with Seattle
So what you're showing is that there's no way to tell who's on steroids and who's not. Ironic that before A-Rod was busted he was heralded as baseball's savior; finally a clean player, a natural player, would have the home run record. Except not.
When did A-Rod start using steroids? Maybe he used them from the beginning. Regardless, it seems they're both steroid users. That's the only fact there.
I don't see what's so sketchy here. It's not like his power went away, just his contact.
This. Honestly, the guy has always been strong enough to hit 40 home runs. It's good contact that was missing. I recently saw him take batting practice twice in Atlanta, and we're assuming they're off steroids now. He was hitting consistent bombs 420 to 450 feet. Far further than any player on the Sox or Braves.
He's simply not making good contact. Now, maybe that has to do with steroids, or maybe he's wearing down without steroids, but contending that he's not hitting home runs because he doesn't have the power is comical.
So him hitting just 20 homers in his career with the Twins, then 31 the following year with the Red Sox
His career with the Twins? Come on now, let's at least look at the stats honestly. He was with the twins 6 years. 2 of those years he played under 20 games. Of the remaining 4, only in 2 did he play at least 90 games. In 2 years he played 125 games and 130 respectively.
For his first 3 years he played a total of 111 games, not even close to 1 full season. His entire 6 years in a Twins uniform comes out to not even 3 full baseball season. Why? Because he had injury after injury (2 wrists and 1 knee at least). And it's also true that the Twins thought he should spray the ball around the field. His best season with the Twins was his last, when he hit 20 home runs (not 20 in his career).
So I'm sure steroids helped. They made him stronger, probably healthier, he could work out more. But this whole A-Rod was natural but Papi was completely steroids is BS. If you look at the players on steroids, you see evidence that they might make very good players great, and great players greater, but there's no sign that they make bad players great. It didn't make Paul Byrd Roger Clemens, or Phil Hiatt, Bonds.
You have to be talented. Steroids doesn't give you talent. Ortiz was never on A-Rod's level, but he is/was a very talented hitter.
posted by justgary at 07:18 PM on August 10, 2009
In A-Rod's case, his numbers have always shown that he can hit for power, not 6 years into his career as with David Ortiz.
Didn't they say A-Rod was using since high school? That would sorta explain the consistency, wouldn't it?
posted by yerfatma at 08:16 AM on August 11, 2009
So what you're showing is that there's no way to tell who's on steroids and who's not.
No, not at all. What I described was how after 6 years of David Ortiz being in the majors, him hitting for power increased all of a sudden when he was signed by the Boston Red Sox. As with A-Rod, maybe he was on PED's before he even got into MLB, we don't know. What we do know is that he has been consistant from day 1 and has always been able to hit the long ball unlike Ortiz. I'm just going by stats between these two players their first 6 years in the league and A-Rod admitted that he was using during his tenure with the Texas Rangers which was after his stint with the Mariners.
His best season with the Twins was his last, when he hit 20 home runs (not 20 in his career).
My error, I meant to say, "So him hitting just 20 homers in his last year with the Twins", but to go from hitting 20 homers his last year with Minnesota to 31, 41, 47 and then 54 homeruns respectively, in his first 4 years with the Red Sox is ridiculous. Anyone who thinks that all of a sudden, Big Papi comes to Boston and becomes a monster there is kiddin' themselves.
Honestly though, this doesn't change the fact that I still liked David Ortiz as a player, I just dislike it when certain players seem to get a "free pass" just because they portray themselves as a likeable individual so therefore, whatever they say must be true. Then the opposite happens when a player that people love to hate echos the same sentiment and people dismiss it without a second thought. They key word with Ortiz is that he "unknowingly" took a banned substance. Doesn't that word remind anyone of any other player?
Didn't they say A-Rod was using since high school?
No, "they" didn't say, "they" assumed. Big difference. A kid in high school that is working out on a regular and is still growing like most teenagers usually are, anyone can make that speculation about most kids in sports that workout daily but it doesn't make it true. Next thing you know there will be specualtion that he was on PED's while still in his mother's womb and also had the frosted tips to coincide with the orange tan.
I listen to the Dan Patrick show daily and one question that he threw out there yesterday was if we as fans had a chance to not know anything about steriods or PED's and pretty much be oblivious to what was going on in sports (particularly baseball since that's where records are being broken although I'm pretty sure they're in all sports), would we choose to be naive about it?
posted by BornIcon at 08:21 AM on August 11, 2009
My error, I meant to say, "So him hitting just 20 homers in his last year with the Twins", but to go from hitting 20 homers his last year with Minnesota to 31, 41, 47 and then 54 homeruns respectively, in his first 4 years with the Red Sox is ridiculous. Anyone who thinks that all of a sudden, Big Papi comes to Boston and becomes a monster there is kiddin' themselves.
That progression, to me, looks natural and corresponds with a rise in batting average and just becoming a better hitter, which most players do until age 30 or so. He obviousely failed a test and was taking something but I reject the notion that it's readily apparent in his numbers. It's only sketchy if you want it to be sketchy.
For his first 3 years he played a total of 111 games, not even close to 1 full season. His entire 6 years in a Twins uniform comes out to not even 3 full baseball season. Why? Because he had injury after injury (2 wrists and 1 knee at least).
I guess if there was anything in his stats that pointed to PED use it could be the number of games played per year. Or maybe he just got healthy, who knows.
posted by tron7 at 10:27 AM on August 11, 2009
That progression, to me, looks natural..
Maybe if his name was Roy Hobbs, then you can call it natural.
It's only sketchy if you want it to be sketchy
I beg to differ but everything is sketchy because baseball in a whole made it that way. If anyone is to blame for people being suspicious about MLB, it's the players all the way up to the MLBPA and the commissioner himself.
..maybe he just got healthy, who knows.
Riiiight. And maybe pitchers never scuffed the ball. Or better yet, maybe Ty Cobb wasn't a racist.
We need to stop making excuses for what went on in sports and understand that this is what's been going on. So these players were taking a susbstance that wasn't banned at the time and now the chickens come home to roost, it happens.
Steriods helps people that are injured heal faster than they normally would naturally. Does that mean that Big Papi was taking steriods? Not really. It just means that he took something that was on the banned list, it was found in his system which is why he is 1 of 104 players on a list in the first place and maybe he got lucky by not getting injured.
It just seems pretty fishy that after he joined the Red Sox, he started hitting for more power and it shows in his stats. Now that it's been confirmed that he's on the list, it makes things seems a bit shady but it doesn't necessarily mean that he was taking steriods.
When there was talk of Bonds taking PED's, people made such a ruckus because he broke this so-called hallowed record. Bonds was villified because people assumed that he was taking steriods. There's never been any proof that he was on the juice but because people don't like him as a person, he was considered a cheater and people would point out his stats as proof that he was on something. I've heard but I can't confirm that his name is also on the list, does that mean that he was in fact on 'roids? No. It just means that he was probably taking something that was on the banned list. It could be 'roids but we don't know for a fact.
Not everyone on this list is guilty of taking steriods, just guilty of being ignorant of what's going into their bodies since MLB wasn't policing themselves at that time.
posted by BornIcon at 11:38 AM on August 11, 2009
When there was talk of Bonds taking PED's, people made such a ruckus because he broke this so-called hallowed record. Bonds was villified because people assumed that he was taking steriods. There's never been any proof that he was on the juice but because people don't like him as a person, he was considered a cheater and people would point out his stats as proof that he was on something.
I'm one of the biggest defenders of Bonds around here, but the evidence that Bonds was on steroids is several magnitudes greater than any evidence that Ortiz was. There was a whole book and two reporters full-time investigating it. The U.S. government decided to vote tons of resources to the same issue. All we have is a report that Ortiz is on the list. I agree that Ortiz and those well-liked are going to be treated differently, but that's life. You believe people you like, and you think people you don't like are liars.
posted by bperk at 11:55 AM on August 11, 2009
No, "they" didn't say, "they" assumed. Big difference
Like the one you're making about Ortiz. But of course it's ok because you're doing it, so this is going to be another thread that you'll feel compelled to curate and shout down opposing views. I'm all set.
posted by yerfatma at 12:15 PM on August 11, 2009
There was a whole book and two reporters full-time investigating it.
So because a book was written about Bonds, that means that he was in fact taking steriods? I've read Game of Shadows and it's actually a pretty interesting read but where in there does Bonds come out and says, "Ok, you got me!! I was juicing!"..? What chapter was that because I seem to have skipped that part? From my recollection, there was a couple of quotes from an ex-girlfriend that may want to make Bonds out to be some abusive, drug user. Who knows?
I seem to remember that that the authors of that book were going to be sent to jail for publishing leaked grand jury testimony until the case was dropped due to one of Victor Conte's initial defense lawyers Troy Ellerman got caught by the FBI for being the one who leaked this information and was sentenced to 2 years in jail.
You believe people you like, and you think people you don't like are liars.
Just because I may like a certain player doesn't mean that I'm just going to believe whatever he or she has to say. I have always like Barry Bonds as a player but that doesn't mean that I'm going to believe everything that the man says. It just disappoints me that people made Bonds out to be the poster boy of PED's when it was MLB as a whole that let this happen in the first place. Bonds was a Hall of Famer while in Pittsburg and solidified his place in history as a HoF'er while with the Giants.
Now with all the players of this era soon to be on the ballot in a few years, will anyone actually get in?
Like the one you're making about Ortiz.
Not at all. Ortiz was on the list of people that took something that was banned. Does it mean that it was steroids that he was taking? No. The only thing it means is that he took something and the test came back positive.
My point is that people are quick to want to believe Ortiz because of who he is since he's likeable but when a player like A-Rod is in the same situation, a one on one interview with Peter Gammons is called for as well as a press conference where his teammates are on stage.
But of course it's ok because you're doing it
Did I say it was ok? You're the one that brought up that "they" said something about A-Rod being on PED's since high school which you have no facts to base that on. I'm only giving my reasons as to why I said what I said about David Ortiz and if you choose to believe something else, go right ahead. I'm not here to change your opinion, I'm here to give mines.
posted by BornIcon at 12:48 PM on August 11, 2009
So because a book was written about Bonds, that means that he was in fact taking steriods?
Where did I say that? I was commenting on you comparing Ortiz and Bonds to show that Ortiz is being given a break. They are no where near similar. Ortiz is allegedly on a list that no one has seen while there is lots more evidence that implicates Bonds. Obviously making Bonds the scapegoat hasn't quite worked to erase the scandal as the Commish was clearly hoping.
posted by bperk at 01:28 PM on August 11, 2009
Where did I say that?
No sir, it was a question. I never wrote that that's what you said.
Obviously making Bonds the scapegoat hasn't quite worked to erase the scandal as the Commish was clearly hoping
True that, bperk. Well played.
posted by BornIcon at 01:40 PM on August 11, 2009
We need to stop making excuses for what went on in sports and understand that this is what's been going on.
Looking beyond "OMG he took steroids that MUST be the reason" is, in fact, trying to understand what's going on. It's you, BornIcon, that wants to stick your fingers in your ears while repeating steroids, steroids, steroids and refusing to actually take the time to look a little deeper.
I'm just going by stats between these two players their first 6 years in the league
Your version of comparing stats is so flawed as to be completely worthless. Surely you understand this. I can only assume you simply don't have the time or inclination to look beyond what you found in 5 minutes of research. It mainly only covers what I've already said, and you've ignored, but here's an article from the very well respected (and more importantly researched) Hardball Times.
The most important paragraph:
After what looked like such a promising beginning to a career that saw him reach the majors at 21 and win a starting job at 22, Ortiz entered the 2002 season as 26-year-old with a grand total of 330 games in the major leagues. He had been moved from first base to designated hitter, suffered two major injuries, and been demoted to Triple-A after having success in the big leagues. Ortiz began the 2002 season as the Twins' everyday DH, but once again suffered an injury early in the year. This time it was bone chips in his knee and, after having surgery to remove them, he missed a month of action. Ortiz returned in mid-May and managed to stay in the lineup for the remainder of the year. Despite playing in just 125 games, he established career-highs in home runs (20), RBIs (75) and slugging percentage (.500).
And at that point, when he was finally healthy and putting it together, the Twins knew they'd have to pay Ortiz so they let him go.
Taking into consideration the potential he showed in the minors, the amount of games played, the 3 injuries, including 2 wrist (kind of important in hitting for power), and the last year he had in Minn, there's not much sketchy about his statistics, unless you want to claim he found steroids and they kept him healthy.
Again, comparing Arods first 6 years and Ortiz's first 6 years and coming to any conclusion only works if you know nothing about their first 6 years.
(I also find it ironic that you take for fact that Arod only started in Texas because well, he said so and that conveniently fits your theory too perfectly to disbelieve, but I can only deal with so many faulty assumptions at one time.)
posted by justgary at 11:43 PM on August 13, 2009
Yeah. Vitamin S.