Quote:
Originally Posted by butchie_t
Has he been exposed as a user of PEDs then noted and added. I don't pick and choose frankly. I paint with a broad PED brush. Did not know he was in the mix too. So thanks. I am a no for him as well if he has been identified.
|
The "evidence" against him was an anonymous supposed positive test during the experimental testing period in 2003.
One that MLB wouldn't discuss with anyone in any meaningful way, including Ortiz who was exposed in a "report" that came out years afterward.
MLB wouldn't tell him which test was failed - not the date, place, nothing.
MLB wouldn't say what it was supposedly positive for.
The experimental testing program had lots of procedural issues with stuff like proper sample handling by the testers, and by the lab. Samples possibly not being identified by a tightly controlled code, but just the name written clearly. Chain of custody issues, like don't take a box full of pee samples home with you because it's been a long day and the office is "too far away"
To me that's a very sketcky claim that isn't much of anything.