Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards
The "failed" test is far from that cut and dry though. I used to feel the same way about Ortiz, but the more and more I read about the 2003 survey testing the more I dislike holding that against anyone.
"In the years after MLB began testing more rigorously and punishing PED users in 2004, Ortiz never tested positive for any kind of banned drug. In 2016, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said it was possible that Ortiz never registered a positive test in 2003 because of the questionable accuracy of those tests. He also said the 2003 testing should not come into play when determining players’ legacies (or Hall of Fame candidacies)."
This on top of the fact that these were supposed to be anonymous and the results were leaked. Plus, unlike future testing, there was no confirmation testing done and the entire system was a little more haphazard because this was merely a survey to determine how widespread the issue was to help come up with an actual testing program, it was never intended to be a definitive diagnosis of cheating for any one result.
|
It's more evidence than is being used to keep out other players, who never failed any test of any kind. If this test belonged to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens (the evidence against which is almost entirely the testimony of a convicted perjurer), or Gary Sheffield, it would be used as proof to keep them out. 'It's not enough proof for Ortiz but almost no proof for anyone else is enough' is a rather ridiculous standard that the Hall and the media has adopted. I don't much care what standard is drawn - just that it is applied across the board instead of to carve out media favorites as a separate class.