And it's in, Ortiz has been elected to the Hall

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Papi failed a test. Manfred said it might have been a false positive but that he failed a test is a fact.

If Papi was a disliked guy, like Barry Bonds, writers would've used that test to justify not voting for him. But since hes well liked, enough writers gave him the benefit of the doubt or looked the other way to vote him in.

Writers have proven they cannot be fair and objective. Baseball needs a new voting system.

"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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by steve B

"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.

I think your post kind of proves my point, people say the leaked info is flawed when it comes to Ortiz but writers use the same info to justify not voting for less popular players like Sammy Sosa and Carlos Delgado.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I think your post kind of proves my point, people say the leaked info is flawed when it comes to Ortiz but writers use the same info to justify not voting for less popular players like Sammy Sosa and Carlos Delgado.

Most of the players are tough decisions for me in a few ways.

Sosa, doubled his HR production at an age when many people start slowing down a bit. That's a bit surprising. Then there's the whole idea of comparing him to Maris, who had a similar bump, but only for one year and a bit earlier in his career.

Delgado? I haven't heard any accusations, and his career numbers are pretty consistent. I think he somehow got added to the suspect list when there's really no reason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Article from a while back critical of Ortiz.

http://archive.boston.com/sports/col...ouble_kee.html