Ortiz' failed test came from a New York Times report. Ortiz then claimed his test result was leaked because too many Yankees were testing positive and claimed he did not know he had tested positive. Here's one of many mainstream news sources summarizing and linking:
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/d...sted-positive/
That his test was supposed to be anonymous seems utterly irrelevant to the actual debate. I don't think anyone holds the position that steroid players should be kept out of the Hall of Fame only if A) they tested positive and B) that test was intended to be public knowledge. The argument is those for whom compelling evidence of use is present do not belong in the Hall of Fame (again, I am not in this camp).
If Clemens is guilty on the testimony of others, if Bonds is guilty on the testimony of others, then Ortiz' failed drug test seems compelling enough evidence to put him in the same boat.
I do not see a rational basis for twisting the argument to be that Ortiz should be treated in a completely different matter because his failed test wasn't supposed to become public. This is relevant to an ethical argument about privacy perhaps, and other things, but not Hall of Fame selection.