Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don’t have the integrity, sportsmanship or

[Republicaninmass]

I still dont see Ortiz mentioned in the mitchell report. This was just more n54 idiots allowing their own narrative to change the data.

"Manfred deferred to Hall of Fame voters to make judgments on Ortiz's career. But he did note that Ortiz "has never been a positive at any point under our program." MLB's drug-testing program was implemented in 2004."

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I still dont see Ortiz mentioned in the mitchell report. This was just more n54 idiots allowing their own narrative to change the data.

"Manfred deferred to Hall of Fame voters to make judgments on Ortiz's career. But he did note that Ortiz "has never been a positive at any point under our program." MLB's drug-testing program was implemented in 2004."

Do you think David Ortiz was PED free or just calling out one guy that messed up on him being in the Mitchell report?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I still dont see Ortiz mentioned in the mitchell report. This was just more n54 idiots allowing their own narrative to change the data.

"Manfred deferred to Hall of Fame voters to make judgments on Ortiz's career. But he did note that Ortiz "has never been a positive at any point under our program." MLB's drug-testing program was implemented in 2004."

I read the story saying Ortiz name was on the list, why shouldn't I have believed it? Because Ortiz said it wasn't true? The same story named Manny Ramirez and they were right about him. I assume you never believe any news stories with anonymous sources?

I don't understand why you have to make it personal by calling people names?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I read the story saying Ortiz name was on the list, why shouldn't I have believed it? Because Ortiz said it wasn't true? The same story named Manny Ramirez and they were right about him. I assume you never believe any news stories with anonymous sources?



I don't understand why you have to make it personal by calling people names?

From what I see, He is not in the mitchell report try reading it your dam self. You lied, or you just have no reading comprehension. Maybe you saw it on facebook?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

From what I see, He is not in the mitchell report try reading it your dam self. You lied, or you just have no reading comprehension. Maybe you saw it on facebook?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I told you where the story came from, I didn't pull it out of my ass, dickhead.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I told you where the story came from, I didn't pull it out of my ass, dickhead.

Hi, the source isnt the mitchell report as you stated. You stand corrected. I know its hard to believe. Maybe take some time off.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Hi, the source isnt the mitchell report as you stated. You stand corrected. I know its hard to believe. Maybe take some time off.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The source was the NY Times article. Stop playing stupid, you know the source, you even said it yourself.

Are you that much in love with Ortiz, you can't even think its possible he took steroids?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I still dont see Ortiz mentioned in the mitchell report. This was just more n54 idiots allowing their own narrative to change the data.

"Manfred deferred to Hall of Fame voters to make judgments on Ortiz's career. But he did note that Ortiz "has never been a positive at any point under our program." MLB's drug-testing program was implemented in 2004."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...fame/91442256/

Hard to keep the story straight, did he test positive but it might have been a false positive, or did he not test positive at all? In any case, he is clearly going into the Hall and a great player and fan favorite.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I still dont see Ortiz mentioned in the mitchell report. This was just more n54 idiots allowing their own narrative to change the data.

"Manfred deferred to Hall of Fame voters to make judgments on Ortiz's career. But he did note that Ortiz "has never been a positive at any point under our program." MLB's drug-testing program was implemented in 2004."

After reading some more, there was an agreement that any test results were to remain confidential, so you are correct, Ortiz was not named in the Mitchell Report. Some of the positive results were leaked to the NYT, thats where Ortiz name comes up. The same article also names Manny Ramirez, so the article does appear to have some validity.

Nothing you said here disputes that Ortiz might have failed the 2003 test and, sorry I don't put any weight in Manfred's quote.

[egri]

I'm skeptical about Ortiz using for a few reasons. First, as others have mentioned, the test itself was suspect. Then throughout his career, he had a dad bod. You're telling me that the same drug that made Bonds, Sosa, and Mcgwire go from looking like twigs to jacked, when Ortiz took it, turned him into the Pillsbury doughboy instead? If steroids caused him to gain fat as he aged, then practically every male between the ages of 22-40 must be juicing too, as most of them similarly gained body fat (guilty as charged). And around the same time he was having some of his best seasons, A-Rod was getting caught a second time. The same testing regimen that nabbed him also would've caught Ortiz, but didn't.

If it comes out from a reliable source, not a test that had all sorts of issues and was supposed to remain private anyways, that he was juicing, I'll eat my words, but for now, I don't see it.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by egri

I'm skeptical about Ortiz using for a few reasons. First, as others have mentioned, the test itself was suspect. Then throughout his career, he had a dad bod. You're telling me that the same drug that made Bonds, Sosa, and Mcgwire go from looking like twigs to jacked, when Ortiz took it, turned him into the Pillsbury doughboy instead? If steroids caused him to gain fat as he aged, then practically every male between the ages of 22-40 must be juicing too, as most of them similarly gained body fat (guilty as charged). And around the same time he was having some of his best seasons, A-Rod was getting caught a second time. The same testing regimen that nabbed him also would've caught Ortiz, but didn't.

If it comes out from a reliable source, not a test that had all sorts of issues and was supposed to remain private anyways, that he was juicing, I'll eat my words, but for now, I don't see it.

Feel free to correct me but ARods 2nd suspension was from the Biogenesis scandal, not a failed drug test.

[G1911]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Well in fairness there was also the claim that there were numerous false positives among the group that included Ortiz's positive test. Manfred said that at some point.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by egri

I'm skeptical about Ortiz using for a few reasons. First, as others have mentioned, the test itself was suspect. Then throughout his career, he had a dad bod. You're telling me that the same drug that made Bonds, Sosa, and Mcgwire go from looking like twigs to jacked, when Ortiz took it, turned him into the Pillsbury doughboy instead? If steroids caused him to gain fat as he aged, then practically every male between the ages of 22-40 must be juicing too, as most of them similarly gained body fat (guilty as charged).

Speaking of dad bod ... Bartolo Colon tested positive for PEDs in 2012 and served a 50 game suspension.