Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
Clemens also passed "dozens of times" (I doubt either were tested this many times), and never failed. If that's proof for Ortiz being innocent, how is it not proof for Clemens being innocent? If the situations were reversed, you would clearly not make the same argument because you can make the same argument right now - if this is your reason for letting Ortiz off, then Clemens also passes that exact same bar. He actually clears it better because there are 0 failed tests to dismiss instead of 1. This is, yet again, a perfect example of wildly different standards being used with one very strict one for one player and a very loose one for the player we want to let off.
|
You clearly missed the part where I said the fact that the survey test results were thrown out was not iron-clad proof of Ortiz's innocence. It's right there in the first paragraph of my previous reply. I do however, bristle when I hear people say Ortiz was a cheater as if it is an undeniable fact. Likewise, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that Clemens was a cheater as if it's an undeniable fact. People are very quick to speak about things as if they have all the facts when the reality is they do not, and never will, have the whole story.
And yes, Ortiz was tested dozens of times, from 2004 to 2016. 13 years, multiple times each year. Clemens retired in 2007 and was subjected to far fewer tests, but probably still in double digits. And yes, you are correct, Clemens never failed any tests either. However, this isn't my bar, as you put it. Bonds and McGwire never failed a test either, and both admitted to using (though Bonds said it was unknowingly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
Unlike Ortiz. If a positive test has to be thrown out because it *could* be a false positive, which is always possible and always has been in every incarnation of the tests, then why is the mere accusation proof enough for Clemens? It is true that there is more evidence for Ortiz than Clemens. Nobody is able to locate any actual evidence against Clemens; the same is just not true for Ortiz.
|
There has been no actual evidence located against EITHER player, as the 2003 test results were destroyed and even Ortiz himself was never told what he tested positive for. So saying that's he's guilty is as much speculation as saying Clemens is innocent because the courts found the evidence against him insufficient to convict. It sure feels that you are using the same double standard you are accusing everyone else of using, by admonishing Ortiz for the 2003 test, while simultaneously saying there was no merit to the multiple charges that were brought against Clemens.
So again, I don't know who did what. Neither do you. Neither does anyone on Al Gore's internet. I'm not saying Ortiz definitely deserved induction, or that Clemens definitely does not. I wouldn't be up in arms about it if Clemens does get inducted. I never said it was right that he is being kept out. I am only saying that given the situations, and the way everything unfolded in real time, I can certainly
understand how people can view these cases in entirely different light. And that's why one guy is in the HOF right now while the other is outside looking in.