"Failing" a test that's riddled with problems and that itself is a failure is a big fat nothing.
https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2022...amer-says.html
From that article
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).
“I think whatever judgment writers decide to make with respect to players who have tested positive or otherwise been adjudicated under our program, that’s up to them,” Manfred said in Oct. 2016. “That’s a policy decision. They’ve got to look into their conscience and decide how they evaluate that against the Hall of Fame criteria. What I do feel is unfair is in situations where it is leaks, rumors, innuendo, not confirmed positive test results, that that is unfair to the players. I think that would be wrong.”
In most real testing programs, there's a backup sample that gets tested once the first one tests positive. That's to protect against lab mistakes. (and has been used years later to prove and retroactively punish doping once a specific test for say EPO becomes available. )
A wildly inaccurate test taken as fact by the NYT with no corroboration and no specifics is essentially worthless. You may as well just measure biceps and call anyone over a certain number a doper.
The real programs like the Olympic and cycling ones will clearly state what was found, and these days often how much it differs from the normal range or if there even is a normal range.