It was after he was already in the HOF so he probably didn't care anymore.

It was an interview before a game on FOX. Not sure how to find it and am not going to waste my time looking. I have no reason to lie about it.

I am not accusing you of lying. This is a new claim I have not heard before, asking for the evidence is not a criticism. If it's on video this should have been significant news among at least a subset of baseball fans. I can find no record of this.

I'm assuming you're talking about when Pedro said that before playoff games in 2004, the team would take a shot of alcohol and that Manny Ramirez would put Viagra in them. Something that is not banned and enhances a different kind of performance.

If integrity and respect for the game is your standard, then that has to apply to all involved.

A leak from un-named attorneys, corroborated by nothing.

I'm not sure about the other players, but Ortiz was never informed about a positive test, something you'd think they'd want to do.

Along with not being told, they couldn't tell him what he'd tested positive for. Which is in many ways the single most important piece of information. I can see not making it public, but not informing the player?

If they had the info, why not also release what each player tested positive for? To this day that has never happened. Some things that could be tested for are present in some pretty mundane stuff. Many over the counter supplements, at least one cyclist got in trouble over a poppy seed bagel....
So release that information.

The government got the info, and at least for Bonds the actual sample. (Note, only one sample, when every serious testing program takes two.)
The 2003 program didn't find anything, but the government testing sure did.

So right off, either the testing was for the wrong things, or was poorly done.


Having integrity and respect for the game would not be anonymously "releasing" information that was supposed to be confidential, and that wasn't properly done, making it unreliable.

Ok, since you must have inside info-

Failed in what way?
For what substance?
The testing was done by who?
And since we know it didn't follow internationally standard protocols, how was it done? Methodology? protection of chain of custody?

Anyone can be an anonymous source, but to me they are not credible if they don't have that sort of information.

Yes and no. The version I watched he also talked about some type of PED Manny was bringing back from the DR and was also putting in it.

EDIT: To add, I don't care if he did PEDs I just don't like that he got in and arguably the GOAT pitcher and one of the best offensive players off all time didn't. Hell I think PEDs should be mandatory as it was a much better game when they didn't have to hide it and do untested PEDs that don't show up in tests like they do now.

If you think Papi didn't use, what's your take on his transformation beginning in 03 from his Twins years?

That's false. Ortiz himself has confirmed that he failed a test.

So, while promoting his book in which he vehemently denied taking PEDs, he did an interview admitting he took PEDs? That makes no sense.

Maybe he was just trying to get people to buy the book. I have no idea I just know what he said.

Even if it was just(LOL) alcohol and Viagra how is that not distribution and consuming an prescription DRUG that is also a performance enhancer? That is several felony drug counts for us normal people.

I am still waiting on an explanation from the pro Ortiz crowd about his amazing year at 40 years old.

Not testing positive for years means nothing. A-rod and a bunch of other players got caught and suspended around 2012/2013 with zero positive tests.

Also in the early years of testing, players names weren't released unless they failed more than one test.

It was leaked in a NYT story that Papi failed a test in 2003. Papi has since admitted he failed the test. Manfred said Papi failed a test, but the testing resulted in some false postives and he never disclosed what banned substance it was and writers should use their judgement when voting for Ortiz.

Papi failed a drug test. No inside info.

I heard a Papi supporter claim it was all Fenway Park effect. lol

My favorite was when one supporter said that huge mound of muscle was a dad bod.:eek:

I'm not saying one way or the other if he used or not, but he had a few injuries to his wrist(s) and didn't get consistent playing time. Whenever the Twins sent him back down to the minors and he played regularly, he put up the numbers. When on the Twins, he didn't get that. Even when he got to the Red Sox in '03 he at first didn't play regularly due to Jeremy Giambi taking away from his playing time and he didn't do much. It was only when Ortiz started playing every day, about two months into the season, that he started producing.

I read some article the other day that mentioned something about the Twins stadium at the time and the park playing a factor as well with him. Something about him always trying to pull the ball to hit a home run instead of using the whole field or something and that the dimensions for Fenway made it easier for him to use the whole field/hit home runs. I don't remember the details on that though but that was the general idea.

Doesn't this all really boil down to Bonds, Clemens and others not being really friendly with the press and the amount of deception with the players (look at Palmeiro, great example of deception).

I bet if Bonds wasn't such a dick with the press and he was a "darling" of the press, then he'd be in.

The guy was a MONSTER for the Giants. Incredible numbers and look at the respect/fear they had for him when they gave him 120 free intentional passes (and a total of 232 BB) in 2004.

Papi = nice guy = HOF induction.

Who'd you rather have on your team? A-Rod or Papi?
Papi = in HOF
A-Rod = less than 50% of the required votes for HOF

That's absolutely what this boils down to though, in the case of Bonds (domestic violence) and Roger Clemens (Mindy McCready), it's not just "well, he was mean to the press" that they dislike them for.

I would take A-Roid of Ortiz any day of the week.

Off topic like several posts. Since Alex played a little more than half his career at 3B. Career wise is he considered a shortstop or third baseman? If third baseman were does he fit on the all time best list for third basemen? Top 3 are easy with Mike Schmidt first. Wade Boggs and Eddie Mathews are second and third with no wrong order for those 2 legends. With only half his career at third I can't see Alex ahead of those 3.

Tough to say. I would say, at their peaks, Alex was better than Schmidt at 3B. Career-wise, Schmidt at 3B is ahead of Alex. But Alex also has half a career as the best SS of all-time.

Ortiz had maybe 50 more HR on the road for his career than at home. A lot more 2B at home though and a much better BA. This is for whole career and I haven't filtered out the Minn years btw.

So in "the world you wish to live in" Ortiz is the victim, got it.

How about a world where people are held accountable for their choices and accept the consequences of their actions?

Ortiz cheated. Period.

This is all about the elasticity of the Character Clause. If Bonds and Clemens were as "liked" as Ortiz they would be in by now. And if Sosa's likability was what it was before 2004 he would be in by now. Same with Schilling before he went from being a paragon to a pariah. (I wouldn't want Schilling to speak from behind the podium at a HOF induction so I get it by now)

None of these guys -- Bonds, Clemens, Schilling or Sosa -- made in ten years. Now it gets even less transparent. They go to the "appellate" committee composed of an ever-changing group of former players/managers/owners. Unfortunately this is often just a smaller group of people that selects those players that they "like."

What transformation? He hit 38 homers with the Twins in 715 ABs. The guy was a monster in the minor leagues. He beat out A-Rod and Griffey Jr in a home run contest when those guys were already in the majors..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUrg...ustoP%C3%A9rez

Check your numbers. More like 1500 AB. 1537. But 56 HR. I think you missed some seasons, or something. Anyhow, the jump was pretty dramatic.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...rtizda01.shtml

I should have said his last two seasons with the Twins. But the entire history of major league baseball is littered with sluggers who had dramatic transformations into home run hitters well before the invention of steroids. And Ortiz was hitting a homer about once every 6 games in his minor league career and it went to about once every 4.5 games in the majors. I'll bet this is pretty similar to most players who were known for hitting the long ball.

7 years in? You may be right but remind me of some examples. I just remember Puckett having literally none his first year, and of course Ruth you can't really count as not an everyday player.

George Foster
Jeff Kent
Jose Bautista
Dante Bichette

Yeah I should have remembered Foster he came out of nowhere. Kent had some big seasons in mid career but they weren't THAT different from a few he had earlier, looks like.

We’ll just call it the Manny Ramirez “effect.”

Albert Pujols Accused of Steroid Use: “I know for A Fact He Was,“ Says Jack Clark

https://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsbl...ays-jack-clark

No player wants to be a Jose Canseco and call out other players. Bro-Code will always exist. However, I don’t know the reason why Jack Clark called out Pujols, but he did. Wouldn’t it be great if we could give everyone some truth serum and really get the truth? Most of what we argue and debate is what we read and hear. Many conflicting stories. What is the real truth? Does anyone really care for the truth? Yes and no. Only when it comes to deciding who gets in or stays out of the HOF.

Like most have expressed, likeability does play a role in it; to where many will turn their head and look the other way for someone who is liked. I’m looking forward to all of the conversations when it’s Albert Pujols’ time for the HOF. Even if a video popped up with Jose Canseco giving Pujols a shot of steroids, most would say, “What proof do you have that it was steroids? Pujols said it was a shot of Vitamin B. What proof do you have? Pujols is a great guy! He even has his own foundation.” Again, everyone will spin it how they want to see it. Smoke and Mirrors.

In June 2006, Chris Mihlfeld found himself at the center of the biggest steroids scandal in sports history. Major media outlets claimed that he may have helped supply pro baseball players with PEDs. The frenzy grew, even as big-name players stepped up to defend Mihlfeld’s name.

Of course big-name players defended Mihlfelds. Of course when Jack Clark called Mihlfelds and Puhols out, they both denied it. No way they are going to admit it’s true?

I heard all of the talk back then about Pujols too. There are many articles out there about Pujols steroids and Mihlfeld steroids. Guilty by association? The opportunity was there; Mihlfeld was Pujols’ personal trainer.

Like I previously stated, I believe most are smart enough to know that those players we talk about having used PEDs (don’t need a positive test or a smoking needle to know that), and there are many others we don’t know about. We don’t know all who used; how much they used; and how long they used; and we will never know. People can put whatever spin they want on it, in order to justify how they want to see it, but we all know. Usually when a player is called out for PEDs, I’ll look up their stats. Yup, I can pretty much pick out the years they were most likely juicing.

In 2002, his best season in MN, his OPS was .839, his next 5 years in Boston, his OPS were .961, .983, 1.001, 1.049, 1.066.

Thats a transformation.

Yep - I'm so DONE with these so called sportswriters and the entire process for HOF elections. effem

@3Arod13:

Playing the what about game and diverting to Pujols (or any other player for that matter) does nothing to strengthen the argument for Ortiz because it does not erase the fact that he cheated.

Furthermore, unlike Ortiz, Pujols has never tested positive for PEDs and filed a defamation suit against Jack Clark who publicly retracted his statement saying that he had "no knowledge whatsoever that Mr. Pujols has ever used illegal or banned PEDs".

As I stated in an earlier post, Ortiz could have filed a defamation suit against the newspaper just as easily but chose not to. What reason would Ortiz have to not file a lawsuit other than the fact that he knew he couldn't win? He knew he was using banned substances and there was actual evidence to back that up.

Ortiz does not equal Pujols.

...
 

@ MINES_MINT

- Playing the what about game and diverting to Pujols (or any other player for that matter) does nothing to strengthen the argument for Ortiz because it does not erase the fact that he cheated.

* My post had nothing to do with Ortiz. If you read any of my other posts, my take on the steroid era always has been none of them should get in. Period! However, they’ve already put some PED users in the HOF (Bagwell, Rodriguez, Piazza, etc.) from that era. So now my take on it is, if you let one in, they all get in. Period! Can’t pick and choose. Put an asterisk next to their names and call it a day.

- Furthermore, unlike Ortiz, Pujols has never tested positive for PEDs

* Neither did any of the current players in the HOF from that era (and in the past) that used PEDs. Remember, Pudge Rodriguez never denied it. Didn’t test positive. He said, “Only God knows’ if I tested positive for steroids.” Guilty! He played it safe, just in case proof would surface later.

- and filed a defamation suit against Jack Clark who publicly retracted his statement saying that he had "no knowledge whatsoever that Mr. Pujols has ever used illegal or banned PEDs".

* Of course he did. No physical evidence, lawsuit, money, etc. Still doesn’t make it not true. He did it only because he had no choice, because he wouldn’t have won in court. Pujols knew by doing it, it would shut Clark down. Common sense. No brainer. Happens all the time. This is why so many people don’t speak out against others.

As I stated in an earlier post, Ortiz could have filed a defamation suit against the newspaper just as easily but chose not to. What reason would Ortiz have to not file a lawsuit other than the fact that he knew he couldn't win? He knew he was using banned substances and there was actual evidence to back that up.

* I don’t disagree with you that Ortiz used steroids, so nothing more to add.

...
 

@3arod13

my fault. I got ahead of myself and after rereading I better understand where you were going with your post now.

I think I've just heard "what about (blank)" too many times recently regarding this topic haha.

Understand. No worries. We don't live in a perfect world, so I just try to go with it. Many people on NET54 make a lot of great points and give me things to think about differently, so that's a good thing. Live and learn, that's what I always say.

Thanks, Tony

To make it worth your while, I'll transfer $100 to your PayPal account today if you post a link to the video you describe.

Glenn, make it a T206 HOFer (your choice) in G-VG condition and open it up to everyone. If it's out there, someone will find it. :p

Awesome, I could make up to $1 for every hour I wasted looking for a interview from before a baseball game from several years ago hoping someone saved it and it is still posted someplace on the internet.LOL

So what one of the cheaters are you saying didn't do PEDs? Get over it they all done PEDs. Your favorite player cheated as did my favorite player and everyone elses favorite player. The only difference is the era you favorite player played in on how they cheated.

There is a significant difference between 1) players who tested positive or have significant other evidence of use and 2) players who face accusations. Some of group 2) have gotten in. Ortiz is the first of group 1) to get in while numerous far more deserving (and obviously so) candidates in the same boat have been excluded.



I find it difficult to believe that Martinez admitted to steroid use on live national television and that this video does not exist. No online articles or discussion of it prior to now seem to exist. I don't see how this could have been memory holed, it would have been big news at the time for at least a subset of fans who hate the Red Sox.

I could be wrong but I doubt the majority of fans care about steroids/cheating. I was watching a old game recently and the announcer was using the word juicing when referring to home runs. Absolutely nobody cared back then and it was a joke to mention it.

One thing I have noticed when watching older tv shows and older ball games is they are removing references to steroids and racial slurs. Maybe the interview I watched got changed immediately. I have no idea all I know is I have zero reason to lie about it. I have 4 favorite players and 3 of them are Red Sox players so I am far from a Red Sox hater.

And this transformation has never happened to any other player who found himself in a new environment with new hitting coaches?

We need more card pictures. Here is 3 Red Sox players "cards" that contain several cards.

HOF election process is the new Miss America pageant

You asked what transformation, I showed you stats and you still don't wanna see.

Ortiz failed a drug test in 2003 and his stats skyrocketed the same year and you think it was the hitting coach? Unbelievable.

It was the butler with the candlestick in the conservatory

It is really not that unbelievable. We all have blind spots big enough to fly the Goodyear blimp through when it comes to our favorite player/grader/seller. It is what it is.:)

Nobody thinks you're lying. We're all just highly skeptical that Pedro actually said what you think you heard.

Okay. So nobody cares about steroids, despite the heavy press and fan focus for the last quarter century on them. References to steroids (and racial slurs) are being removed in the media and old archival footage. The interview was either completely hidden or cleverly edited by a cabal or something working to hide steroid admissions to eliminate Pedro’s blatant admission to steroid use, because nobody cares anyways.

Does this nationally televised event being memory holed by a secret conspiracy truly sound more reasonable to conclude than that the event is being misremembered and it did not happen as claimed?

I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, while the pigs are flying.

Honestly, I realized nobody cares about steroids when Manny came back from his suspension to a hero's welcome. And to all the people who want to condemn the juicers and maybe-juicers, who want to make Bud and the owner pariahs, can I assume they stopped watching baseball in the late 90's? Because to blame the players and the union and the owners and the writers for doing nothing about steroids, but still going to games and buying the gear and all of that seems hypocritical to me. Fake stats or not, 1998 was an immensely enjoyable season to watch, and about the only person I can remember who cared about steroids then was Rick Reilly.

If nobody cared, Manny would not be sitting at a mere 28% of the vote.

I am agnostic on if steroids SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be a primary factor in the collective memory or hall elections. I have an opinion on blatant double standards and being logically consistent.

HOF voters and average, everyday baseball fans are two very mutually exclusive groups.

Yes, I'm sure all the online discussion among fans the last quarter century is because nobody cares. The opinion that steroids should keep people out seems to be decreasing among "everyday fans", but that nobody cares seems to be clearly untrue. People sure talk a lot about something they don't care about.

Maybe we can have congress launch another investigation?

I think people care except if the player is on YOUR team, or if you for some other reason like him.

"Nobody came to me after, nobody came to me before, nobody came to me ever to tell me that I test positive for any kind of steroids," Ortiz said in the WEEI interview. "This was just something that leaked out of New York. They have still no explanation about it. It was just, 'You're name was there.' I was like, 'Oh, ok. See how that works.' It's not up to me anymore, about the Hall of Fame. I think I did what I was supposed to. I worked extremely hard to represent (Boston) the way I did."

From this 2017 article. I wanted to find the similar quote from 2009, but the rash of new articles makes it harder to find than it was a couple weeks ago.

https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...icle-1.3180299

Also-
Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred said last year in Boston that when baseball and the union got the test results back from the 2003 survey testing, "we were well over the percentage necessary to trigger the (drug) testing."

But Manfred added that there were "double digits of names — so, more than 10 — on that list where we (the union and MLB) knew that there were legitimate scientific questions about whether or not those were truly positives."

What he said years ago was that Minnesota had a particular style of play they wanted, and that he was told to work on hitting to the opposite field and for average.

Nearly his first times with Boston when he got out trying for the opposite field he was told "that's not what you're here for, swing away"

Just a story to fill a book? Maybe? But taking an approach that's more suitable to your skills and way of thinking is generally good for most people.

Look at his AB/HR across that time and beyond.
2001 16.83
2002 20.6
2003 14.45
2004 14.19
2005 12.78
2006 10.33
2007 16.68
2008 18.08
The years after are roughly the same without doing the math. Around 30 in about 4-500AB

His last couple years in MN he was actually a better HR hitter than he was in 2003 and 4. And really only had one outlier year where he was really a lot better. I think you'll find a lot of players who had that one crazy year. Maris and George Foster come to mind immediately, and they were probably not doping.

Its not only about hitting home runs, Papi raised his OPS 100 points, then 150 points, then 200 points and it started the exact year he failed a drug test.

Ortiz says result got leaked because he was from Boston. He has never once said the result was NOT a positive.

Manfred admits it was a positive when he says it may have been a false positive.

So what are the general thoughts on Maris? The up-and-down of his HR totals are striking: 16-39-61-33-23. Of course, there could be various explanations for that. But I remember reading that his hair was falling out in '61 and that some people were attributing that to something other than stress. Is there any reason to think he was using performance enhancers, or was the technology just not there at the time?

I've heard the rumors, that he had forearms like Popeye. But I think it was expansion pitching that helped him in '61, along with others like John Blanchard and Norm Cash.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That would make sense, and surely that's a factor ... but between 1960 and 1961, the number of teams (and presumably pitchers) increased by 12.5%, and Maris' numbers, as well as as Cash's and Blanchard's went up by far more than that. At the same time, other stars, such as Killebrew and Kaline, had numbers that were in line with what they were otherwise posting during those years.

By this logic though you are essentially saying a player cannot improve based on hard work,practice and technical changes.
So the 750 ops hitter will always be a 750 ops hitter , period?

And I do think it’s probable he used. If you have been on a post HS sports team since mid 1980’s you realize it was/is rampant. There are some Players at all levels, who use and you would never know, because they never had the natural talent of a Bonds or Arod. To think otherwise is tomfoolery.

FWIW 1998 was the most entertaining season I personally ever enjoyed.
Thomas

I'm not saying that all. But when a player spikes the exact same year that he fails a drug test, do we think it was due to technical changes? I don't.

My original response was to a poster that claimed Ortiz never went through any transformation at all. Then claimed it was because of a hitting coach.

Nah...it's just pure coincidence this all happened when he teamed up with Man-Ram.

Are you really stupid enough to claim a false positive is a positive?
Hey, lets do an experiment! Eat a poppy seed bagel, then take an opioid test like Olympic athletes take. Let me know how that goes for you. (It WILL test positive)

A claim of a leaked faulty test result that nobody has been able to provide details on in nearly 20 years is about as weak as it gets.

MLB never released details of what they tested for, or what was found and at what levels.
Neither did the Times.
Neither did Congress.
And supposedly they all had the data on the tests.

Any reliable testing program
A) Anonymizes the samples, after the person who collected the sample, it's just a number, no names. That limits any potential for lab corruption. Did MLB do that? Nobody knows.
B) Uses an A and B sample to mostly eliminate lab error. A positive A sample is then checked using the B sample.
c) Releases the information about what was found, and sometimes at what level. MLB did NOT do this with the 2003 testing. The info wasn't even given to the players who of all people would have a right to know. They didn't even give them that info when specifically asked for it by a player.
This is important, a couple examples.

Bicyclist tests positive for Testosterone, duh, he's a guy. Bicyclist tests positive for testosterone, nearly 3x the limit? Yeah, that's a problem. (Actually the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio, 4:1 is the limit, Landis was closer to 11:1.)

Snowboarder tests positive for Marijuana, loses gold medal. Appeals, says He doesn't smoke because he competes, but friends do and he's not giving up on his friends. Appeal shows that pot is not actually on the WADA list of banned substances despite being punishable by death in some countries. The ammount he had was close enough to the limit that it was possible that just being at a heavy enough party would put him there.
Guy doesn't end up losing his medal.
https://www.thespec.com/opinion/colu...e-hair.html?rf

MLBs 2003 testing program was just barely adequate to show more than 5% so they could start a real program in 2004 without the union getting in the way. It's not impossible that the lab found what they were paid to find. It was a joke of a program.

The hitting coach claim was not mine, it's from Ortiz book. And it wasn't a hitting coach, it was supposedly Francona. (Which yes, makes it shaky, because the timeline is a year off. )

The AB/HR stats are what they are. I didn't bother with going to thousandths or beyond.

An OPS difference somewhat early in a career is probably not at all unusual for a star player. I believe because OPS is affected by many things besides what the player can do naturally.
Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Reggie Jackson, Willie Mays, and to a lesser degree Mantle, All had 100-200 point jumps right about between their second and third full seasons. A couple others I checked didn't, Ott and Musial.

Manfred never said Ortiz was a false positive. He said at least 10 of the 104 positives MAY have been false positives and Ortiz POSSIBLY could have been in the 10, as could have any player. No one knows who the 10 were since the records were destroyed. Those 10 were not re-tested because they easily reached the 5% failure threshold which triggered future testing according to the agreement with the Union.

A positive is a positive. The result of the test was positive. Was it a valid positive? Dunno. But the result of the test was positive. That was confirmed by Ortiz and Rob Manfred.

No amount of your immature name-calling will change that.

Total coincidence, of course.

To be fair, he no doubt got a bump in performance just being in the same lineup as Ramirez.

And Manny will never get any serious consideration for the Hall. Basically just written off as a dirtbag.

One played the part of the lovable bumbling buffoon and the other was his genuine arsehole self. Ortiz gets a big A+ for using the media to his advantage.

A-Rod is also an analyst but he is universally disliked. I think in part because he is just weird, but also because he blatantly lied for years about his doping. People like Big Papi.

Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod - All cheated and have very disagreeable personalities which, right or wrong, is a factor in voters minds.

Sammy Sosa should definitely not get in, without the steroid use he was an average player at best.