Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoPoto
It not only wasn't intended to be public, but Manfred has also said it likely wasn't entirely accurate, because it wasn't fully vetted. It served its purpose as anecdotal information but wasn't managed and adjudicated the way it would have been if it was expected to be used as evidence against a specific player.
|
Of course Manfred said that, he had too because that was the deal that was agreed to and got the Players to take tests in the first place. MLB cannot "fully vet" and certify them without breaking the agreement. It's an appeal to an impossibility, like when classified intel is leaked and the CIA won't confirm it.
If this test is anecdotal, then so is the case against Clemens that relies mostly on others testimony without any failed test or direct evidence. This argument just shifts the double standard to be a different double standard, not a not double standard.