Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 08, 2014

David Ortiz is furious about his failed PED test coming up again.

For whatever reason, David Ortiz hates it when you bring up the fact that he tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. The latest target of his ire: MLB Network hosts who declared he has received a “free pass” for his transgression.

The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: July 08, 2014 at 11:29 AM | 67 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baltimore orioles, boston red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Wahoo Sam Posted: July 08, 2014 at 05:24 PM (#4746468)
I get tired of hearing athletes complain about the price of fame. Ortiz benefits GREATLY from being part of the strongest players' union (and maybe the strongest union of any stripe) in the world. He has made tens of millions of dollars, and he deserves it. Part of the responsibility that comes with that is the CBA, chich his union negotiated and in it there's a drug policy. He is tested, and whether he's tested the same amount as others or not, shut up and deal with it. He failed a test in 2003, when there were no penalties for PED use. The fact that his name is still attached to PEDs is no one's fault BUT HIS OWN. He could take a higher road and say it was a transgression from years ago and he regrets it, etc. Instead he always bristles every time it comes up. Deal with it, David. It comes with the salary. You get scrutinized. That shouldn't be news to any professional athlete.
   2. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 08, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4746485)
Maybe he should ask John Lackey to act as his spokesman.
   3. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: July 08, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4746492)
He failed a test in 2003

based on what evidence except hearsay?
   4. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 08, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4746501)
For whatever reason, David Ortiz hates it when you bring up the fact that he tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003.

The reason is because he has built up a surfeit of 'roid rage.
   5. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 08, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4746516)
based on what evidence except hearsay?


He and the MLBPA conceded he was on that stupid list in 2003, but they don't know what substance he tested positive for; it doesn't have to be a PED. And it could have been a false positive, etc. He denied taking a PED.

(Steroids. Lol. What a silly thing for silly people to obsess over.)
   6. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: July 08, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4746539)
based on what evidence except hearsay?

Hearsay and conjecture are kinds of evidence.
   7. Buzzkill Posted: July 08, 2014 at 06:49 PM (#4746573)
How many of you think Ortiz was using steroids last Fall? No one? How'd he do?
   8. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 08, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4746580)
How many of you think Ortiz was using steroids last Fall?


I haven't the foggiest clue.

I put almost no stock in the fact that he hasn't (to our knowledge) tested positive.
   9. Buck Coats Posted: July 08, 2014 at 07:08 PM (#4746587)
Who has more evidence, Ortiz or Sosa?
   10. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 08, 2014 at 07:13 PM (#4746591)
I suppose since Ortiz did confirm he tested positive for something and thus wound up on the 2003 "list," we can speculate that it is a little more likely (a percentage point or two) that he used steroids than Sosa (who never confirmed he was on the list and the "evidence" that he was was through anonymous "sources" who were disingenuous/unethical enough to claim to be revealing the information in the first place, and even if Sosa was on the list we still don't know what substance he tested positive for).

Really, though, it doesn't move the needle much; it's almost entirely guesswork.
   11. Buzzkill Posted: July 08, 2014 at 08:16 PM (#4746631)
Not even a foggy clue, Ray?
   12. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 08, 2014 at 08:18 PM (#4746636)

#1 of course Ortiz has benefited greatly from his fame and his union membership. That said, those 2003 tests were supposed to be anonymous and the results were supposed to be destroyed. Contrary to those promises from MLB, they were kept around long enough for federal investigators to seize them during the BALCO investigation and for the results to be selectively leaked over time. Ortiz has every right to be pissed about that.
   13. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 08, 2014 at 08:35 PM (#4746646)
Contrary to those promises from MLB, they were kept around long enough for federal investigators to seize them during the BALCO investigation and for the results to be selectively leaked over time. Ortiz has every right to be pissed about that.

Just Ortiz?
   14. bobm Posted: July 08, 2014 at 09:02 PM (#4746663)
Adrian Beltre gets more furious when you touch his head.
   15. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 08, 2014 at 09:10 PM (#4746665)
How many of you think Ortiz was using steroids last Fall?

Personally, I think he's one of the most blatantly obvious users in all of baseball. I think he was using steroids last spring, last summer, last fall, last winter... you get the idea.
   16. JE (Jason) Posted: July 08, 2014 at 10:24 PM (#4746686)
I blame the official scorer.
   17. JE (Jason) Posted: July 08, 2014 at 10:29 PM (#4746689)
By the way, I think the show in question was MLB Now, meaning that Brian Kenny was the host.
   18. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 08, 2014 at 10:48 PM (#4746698)
Contrary to those promises from MLB, they were kept around long enough for federal investigators to seize them during the BALCO investigation and for the results to be selectively leaked over time. Ortiz has every right to be pissed about that.

Just Ortiz?


Everyone, but especially he and ARod. They're the only two (unless I'm missing someone) who were forced to say that they were on the silly list.
   19. cardsfanboy Posted: July 08, 2014 at 10:56 PM (#4746701)
Personally, I think he's one of the most blatantly obvious users in all of baseball. I think he was using steroids last spring, last summer, last fall, last winter... you get the idea.


Other than people already caught, my list of most likely..

1. Nolan Ryan
2. Everyone else who has ever played in the past 30 years.
   20. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 08, 2014 at 11:16 PM (#4746714)

1. Nolan Ryan
2. Everyone else who has ever played in the past 30 years.


3. Tom House
4. Hank Aaron and everyone who played with or against Tom House
5. Willie Mays
6. Lance Parrish
7. Brian Downing
8. Frank Thomas
9. Rick Helling
10. Derek Jeter
11. Mariano Rivera
12. Ken Griffey Jr.
13. Jeff Bagwell
14. Craig Biggio
15. Mike Trout (listed at 6'2, 230)
16. Miguel Cabrera
17. Victor Martinez
18. Jose Bautista
19. Chris Davis
20. John Lackey
21. Roger Maris
22. Mickey Mantle
23. Everyone who played from 1960 on.

   21. Buzzkill Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:09 AM (#4746737)
But seriously, someone remind me… How did Ortiz perform in the Playoffs last year? Was he any good?

   22. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:15 AM (#4746738)
#21, he sucked in the ALCS against Detroit. 2-22 though as I recall he hit a big grand slam. On the other hand he OPS'd something like 1.700 in the other two series.

But what's your point? That he had Magic Playoff Steroid Beans?
   23. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:26 AM (#4746740)
(Steroids. Lol. What a silly thing for silly people to obsess over.)

Says the man who up to now has posted nearly 30% of the comments on this silly thread.
   24. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:29 AM (#4746742)
Says the man who up to now has posted nearly 30% of the comments on this silly thread.


Have you ever seen me criticize a steroids user, or call him a cheater, or claim that his performance was enhanced because he was on steroids? Have you ever seen me praise a so-called "clean" player for being clean?

Since I don't smear players for their use it doesn't matter to me whether they may have used.

But sure, tell us again how it's so Unfair and Libelous to think Nelson Cruz might not be clean in 2014 given that he confessed in 2013.
   25. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:31 AM (#4746744)
The Ortiz thing is particularly silly. I have no idea whether he's ever used or was using during the 2013 playoffs. Don't know, don't care. Sure, let's say he used, whatever. But the silliness doesn't end there: he needs to not only have used, but he needs to have used steroids that worked in the ALDS, didn't work in the ALCS (except for one at bat!), and then worked overtime in the World Series.

Those are some magic steroids.
   26. Booey Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:42 AM (#4746747)
Those are some magic steroids.


Remember, steroids do whatever you want them to do. They keep you healthy and give you unnatural longevity (Bonds, ARod, Palmeiro), but they also do the exact opposite and cause you to break down with constant injuries (McGwire, Canseco, Caminiti). That's what makes them so heinous.
   27. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:46 AM (#4746749)
Says the man who up to now has posted nearly OVER 30% of the comments on this silly thread.

Keep it up, Mr. I-Don't-Obsess. With a bit of grit and a greenie or two, you can get it up to 50% by daybreak.
   28. Walt Davis Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:59 AM (#4746762)
you can get it up to 50% by daybreak.

I suppose that's what happens if you've built up a resistance to Viagra.
   29. BrianBrianson Posted: July 09, 2014 at 05:12 AM (#4746767)


Other than people already caught, my list of most likely


Does Fatty Galvin hocking the steroids he was taking count as being "caught"?
   30. haggard Posted: July 09, 2014 at 08:38 AM (#4746792)
"what a silly thing for silly people to obsess over"


Nowhere near as silly as a grown man obsessing over a Hall of Fame for people who make tens of millions of dollars hitting a ball with a stick.
   31. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 09:21 AM (#4746803)
Juiced to the gills.
   32. Ron J2 Posted: July 09, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4746818)
#12 But the results were kept around because Orza was in the process of attempting to challenge the results.

You can blame MLB for a lot of things, but not specifically this.
   33. Papa Squid Posted: July 09, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4746879)
I don't particularly care about juicers... I think he's juicing, and I think he's definitely gotten a free pass, especially compared to the others said to be named on that 2003 list. There are serious discussions about him going to the Hall of Fame that don't exist for other guys of that era. The free pass doesn't surprise me. He plays for the Boston Red Sox. See Clay Buchholz caught cheating on TV last year vs. Michael Pineda cheating this year. When it was a Boston player, how dare a Boston player be accused! Besides, everyone does it, what's the big deal? But when it was happening TO the Red Sox? You better believe they're gonna complain.
   34. tfbg9 Posted: July 09, 2014 at 11:14 AM (#4746880)
A lie gets around the world twice before the truth blah blah blah...:


http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/no-smearing-in-the-press-box-iii-big-papi-vindicates-cstb-blowhard-michael-s-schmidt-commences-damage-control
   35. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4746887)
Ortiz 2003 results summary

Pretty good summary of the 2003 list - MLB had 96 positives, 14 of which were under appeal, the gov had 104 positives, but no one knows what each positive was for. Ortiz admits to a positive test, but says it was probably tainted supplements, which considering the amount of positive tests from tainted supplements (the NFL had a long fight with 4 players over this) is actually a viable defense. Ortiz since has never failed a test, despite being tested over a dozen times by MLB and voluntarily was tested under Olypmic standards in 2006 and 2009 for the WBC.
   36. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 09, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4746899)
#34 and #35, good posts, even if they're not exactly "new news". It's not always easy to remember the details of every case, but those links are good memory refreshers.
   37. Ron J2 Posted: July 09, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4746925)
#35 Again old news to most regulars, but at that time just over 20% of supplements on the US domestic market would have triggered a (false) positive test for Nandrolone.

But I'm not sure I can buy "never failed a test" as a viable argument. I mean it's precisely the same argument advanced by (among others) Lance Armstrong.

As Tyler Hamilton noted, if you know what you're doing you have a very good chance of beating a drug test. Most modern PEDs leave are detectable only within a short (and well known) window. It's really as simple as knowing the time that you're glowing (cycling term for the period when the PED is detectable) and doing your level best to avoid testers during that window (Hamilton describes simply refusing to answer his door)
   38. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4746932)
Remember, steroids do whatever you want them to do. They keep you healthy and give you unnatural longevity (Bonds, ARod, Palmeiro), but they also do the exact opposite and cause you to break down with constant injuries (McGwire, Canseco, Caminiti). That's what makes them so heinous.

Isn't it possible they could do either, depending on how big of a dosage and/or how long you use them?
   39. tfbg9 Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4746965)
Ortiz since has never failed a test, despite being tested over a dozen times by MLB and voluntarily was tested under Olypmic standards in 2006 and 2009 for the WBC.


And people still idiotically maintain that George Mitchell is not The Puppetmaster Supremo! Fools! Fools!

   40. TDF, situational idiot Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4746966)
Ortiz since has never failed a test, despite being tested over a dozen times by MLB and voluntarily was tested under Olypmic standards in 2006 and 2009 for the WBC.
Has everyone forgotten Biogenesis so quickly?
   41. Ron J2 Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4746975)
#40 Worth noting that ~25% of the Biogenesis customers failed drug tests.
   42. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4746977)
Has everyone forgotten Biogenesis so quickly?


So do we assume every big leaguer is juicing, regardless whether they've done anything to warrant our suspicions? That seems far too joeyerrific for me? Or, at the very least, too baseball writery.

I kind of work under the assumption that all of the guys who are passing tests are clean, until they demonstrate otherwise. I guess I could let my inner cynic rule, but that seems like a pretty miserable way to be a baseball fan.
   43. villageidiom Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4746983)
If I have the math right using a combination of #34 and #35, then we have:

- 75 positive tests for PEDs

- 8 positive tests for legal supplements

- 13 inconclusive tests

And furthermore the counts above are tests, not players; and that some of the 75 might have been multiple positive tests of the same player(s).

- 104 players appearing on a list that Schmidt's sources cite as being the same list

Thus, at least 29 of the 104 were not verified PED users. I say "at least" because of (a) the multiple test thing mentioned above, and (b) what Ron points out in #37, that false positives could easily be generated BITD. Let's say (a) is negligible - it's not like 75 will drop to 40 - and (b) is proportional - that is, the number of false positives is proportional to the number of supplements that would produce a false positive. That would put the number people on the list who weren't verified PED users up to 44. Out of 104.

That doesn't matter, as 29 out of 104 is sufficient volume to justify saying that mere appearance on Schmidt's cited list isn't enough to conclude use. Suspect it, sure, but the list of suspected users from that time is a lot longer than 104, so the list isn't really illuminating in that regard.

- - - - -

I've mentioned in the past that part of my job is to counsel my business partners on the usefulness of the information they have. One of the things I've learned, and emphasize, is that bad information is far worse than no information. If there is no information, people will proceed without it and make decisions on intuition and logic, and those decisions are usually good. If there is bad information, people will make decisions based on the bad information even if they know it's bad. And those decisions end up worse than if we'd just ignored the bad data, pretty much every time.

Nobody here has an actual stake in Ortiz's innocence or guilt. So I recognize there is little consequence to us in using bad info to judge him. There are consequences to Ortiz, which is why our collective cavalier acceptance of "on the list!" as guilt makes him furious - whether he is actually guilty or not. I can't pretend I wouldn't have cause to be furious were I in his place.
   44. Booey Posted: July 09, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4746990)
Isn't it possible they could do either, depending on how big of a dosage and/or how long you use them?


Who knows? And that's exactly why both statements are silly, IMO.
   45. TDF, situational idiot Posted: July 09, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4746997)
So do we assume every big leaguer is juicing, regardless whether they've done anything to warrant our suspicions? That seems far too joeyerrific for me? Or, at the very least, too baseball writery.

I kind of work under the assumption that all of the guys who are passing tests are clean, until they demonstrate otherwise. I guess I could let my inner cynic rule, but that seems like a pretty miserable way to be a baseball fan.
No, but we should now know that "I never tested positive for banned substances" is a pretty empty defense.

I've made pretty clear that I work under the assumption that every pro athlete is doing exactly as much as they think they can get away with; their livelihoods are based entirely on maintaining their athletic ability, and until they tire of the sport there's huge financial incentives to keep playing. These guys have never been "heroes" to me, so I've never needed them to be pure.
   46. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 09, 2014 at 01:07 PM (#4747000)
So do we assume every big leaguer is juicing, regardless whether they've done anything to warrant our suspicions? That seems far too joeyerrific for me? Or, at the very least, too baseball writery.


This is my general assumption. The difference between the joeys of the world and me is that it doesn't matter to me. I don't really care if Ortiz or A-Rod or Jeter or Bloomquist is shoving godknowswhat into their bodies. I'm off the general opinion that steroids are largely a placebo in baseball terms and we have testing and assigned punishments. It's baseball, not a morality play. I no more care about guys doing steroids than I do about who is cheating on their wives.
   47. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 09, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4747016)
No, but we should now know that "I never tested positive for banned substances" is a pretty empty defense.


I wouldn't call it empty. I just wouldn't call it proof.
   48. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 09, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4747020)
I'm off the general opinion that steroids are largely a placebo in baseball terms


And yet you assume all of them are doing it. Do you assume they're all very dumb?
   49. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 09, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4747023)

And yet you assume all of them are doing it. Do you assume they're much dumber than you are?


Given the number of guys who wear those titanium necklaces...

Fair point. I guess a more accurate description of my position is not so much "everyone is doing it" as it is "I would not be surprised by anyone using steroids."
   50. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 09, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4747031)
Fair point. I guess a more accurate description of my position is not so much "everyone is doing it" as it is "I would not be surprised by using steroids."


And that's a very different, and reasonable, assumption.

If we were talking about cycling or weight lifting, then I think the assumption that everyone is doing it is fair, because the link between use and performance improvement is so direct.

As you alluded to, that's not the case in baseball. PED usage probably helps, but only a marginal amount because the sport is not so directly tied to strength/speed/pure physical attributes. It's far more skill-based. As such, I think it's far more likely that a lot (if not most) of these guys aren't, in fact, juicing. And that's particularly true if they think the testing system is working. The higher their confidence in the system, the more likely they'll abstain (because of any fear of getting caught AND, just as, if not more important, the idea that it's keeping down the number of their peers from using).

   51. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 01:34 PM (#4747034)
So do we assume every big leaguer is juicing, regardless whether they've done anything to warrant our suspicions? That seems far too joeyerrific for me? Or, at the very least, too baseball writery.

I kind of work under the assumption that all of the guys who are passing tests are clean, until they demonstrate otherwise. I guess I could let my inner cynic rule, but that seems like a pretty miserable way to be a baseball fan.


I assume I don't know what in the hell any of them are doing.

Sure, I give the benefit of the doubt to players who have no evidence against them.

But I do not give said benefit of the doubt to players who have been shown to have used, or who have confessed to using, in the past.

Finally, as noted, I ascribe no virtue or blame to anyone for using or for being clean, other than the sheer fact that if they're suspended they'll miss games, which is not good for their team. This issue is irrelevant to my personal analysis of who should in my view be in the HOF.
   52. alilisd Posted: July 09, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4747042)
Isn't it possible they could do either, depending on how big of a dosage and/or how long you use them?


There's no good reason to believe AAS cause injuries or breakdowns in athletes. They can certainly wreak havoc with one's endocrine system, but only if abused. I believe there are two old saws which lead to the misperception AAS cause injuries in athletes: 1) they are conflated with cortico steroids, which do in fact break down tissue; and 2) bodybuilders have anecdotally reported muscle injuries which they blamed on AAS, "I got too strong, too fast and tore my pec." There could be some truth to the latter, but even if that grain of truth is there, it would not necessarily be true for baseball players, or other athletes, as the type of training athletes perform is drastically different than the type of training bodybuilders perform.
   53. alilisd Posted: July 09, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4747075)
PED usage probably helps, but only a marginal amount because the sport is not so directly tied to strength/speed/pure physical attributes. It's far more skill-based.


The sport is very directly tied to strength, specifically speed-strength, the rapid application of strength against minimal resistance, in terms of batting and throwing. It is also tied to being strong and explosive, power, in the field and on the bases.

Now you also have to have some genetics to ever get to the point of being able to express your speed-strength on a professional baseball field, but if you have those and you're looking to differentiate yourself from the competition, or to maintain yourself at the highest level of competition, AAS absolutely help. Look at it this way, everyone at AA or AAA has the skills, and/or genetics, you are thinking of when you say the game is "skill-based." Ergo, if you want to set yourself apart, increasing speed-strength, and power, is a great way to do it, and AAS will help. Or if you're already at the MLB level and you're looking to hold off the kid from AA or AAA, AAS wil help.

And this is without even considering the recuprative effects they have, which clearly would be beneficial to maintaining a high level of training in conjunction with a, nearly, daily competitive shedule lasting six months.
   54. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4747077)
These guys have never been "heroes" to me, so I've never needed them to be pure.


Exactly.

I don't know or care whether they are using, for the purposes of my own enjoyment of the sport or for the purposes of my own evaluation of them as players, as men, as deserving of the HOF.
   55. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4747081)
I wouldn't call it empty. I just wouldn't call it proof.


It's "pretty empty," as he said. Really, the lack of a positive test doesn't move the needle much.
   56. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 09, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4747100)
Look at it this way, everyone at AA or AAA has the skills, and/or genetics, you are thinking of when you say the game is "skill-based."


I don't agree at all. Look at all of the body types you find on all types of major league players, from your Prince Fielders to Dustin Pedroias to John Kruks. The skill levels vary considerably.

It's "pretty empty," as he said. Really, the lack of a positive test doesn't move the needle much.


And yet, a failed test moves yours. Strange.

   57. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4747105)
And yet, a failed test moves yours. Strange.


I'm not seeing the inconsistency.
   58. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 09, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4747107)
I'm not seeing the inconsistency.


You can't have one without the other. If a previous failed test leads you to believe that a player is more likely to be using now, then you already believe the inverse.
   59. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4747116)
Not at all.

If you haven't gotten a ticket for speeding then I don't know that you've ever exceeded the speed limit before -- I can guess you have since a large swathe of drivers do -- but the fact that you haven't gotten a ticket is pretty meaningless.

Once you get a ticket I can pretty much be sure that you've sped, but this has nothing to do with the fact that "no ticket" is not very helpful.
   60. SandyRiver Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4747140)
Once you get a ticket I can pretty much be sure that you've sped, but this has nothing to do with the fact that "no ticket" is not very helpful.


But once getting a ticket may or may not have any bearing on whether said driver is more likely than average to speed today. There are some "once burned, twice cautious" folks out there.

No, but we should now know that "I never tested positive for banned substances" is a pretty empty defense.


True, but what else is a guy to say, especially when trying to prove a negative? I guess "nothing" might be the wiser answer, but we know that's not how Big Papi operates.
   61. Random Transaction Generator Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4747149)
There are some "once burned, twice cautious" folks out there.


Or it's "once burned, twice more cautious than before so I don't get caught speeding by the cops even though I do it still".
   62. TDF, situational idiot Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4747191)
But once getting a ticket may or may not have any bearing on whether said driver is more likely than average to speed today.
That's how my insurance company justified jacking my car rates after 1 ticket.
True, but what else is a guy to say, especially when trying to prove a negative? I guess "nothing" might be the wiser answer, but we know that's not how Big Papi operates.
I see the point, but no one should be shocked that "I've never tested positive" is met with a shrug. Plus, you have guys like Braun and Palmiero who loudly professed their innocence in the face of actual positive tests only to be shown to be lying.

I have no idea of Ortiz used PEDs, and I don't care one way or the other in the grand scheme of things. But the way the system has been gamed, and the way those later shown guilty have sometimes acted, I would never assume he's "clean".

So the short answer is, in fact, "nothing". At this point, there's nothing any athlete could say to convince me he or she is "clean".
   63. cmd600 Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:02 PM (#4747203)
And yet you assume all of them are doing it. Do you assume they're all very dumb?


An edge in the weight room certainly can lead to thinking you have an edge once on the field. That doesn't necessarily make you dumb.
   64. JE (Jason) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4747234)
FYI: For those not glued to Holland-Argentina, Big Papi is about to go on MLB Now to discuss Magraine's comments.
   65. Ron J2 Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4747253)
Further to #63 there are plenty of athletes who use what is clearly snake oil.
   66. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4747254)
But once getting a ticket may or may not have any bearing on whether said driver is more likely than average to speed today.
That's how my insurance company justified jacking my car rates after 1 ticket.


almost everyone speeds, but as a general rule you don't get ticketed for doing 60 in a 55 zone, or even 65...

I think Insurance Companies are justified in thinking that people who do get speeding tickets are a bit more reckless than those folks who don't, even if the folks who don't get tickets are likely speeding as well.
   67. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4747321)
The "inverse" that sosh posits In 58 only works if testing quickly catches all or nearly all users. Since that of course doesn't happen -- far from it -- It's a logic fail.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSending Gordon | Joe Blogs
(7 - 3:20pm, Oct 31)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(135 - 3:18pm, Oct 31)
Last: odds are meatwad is drunk

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-31-2014
(21 - 3:12pm, Oct 31)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogDeadline: World Series Ratings: Game 7 Scores Home Run For Fox
(27 - 3:10pm, Oct 31)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(33 - 3:08pm, Oct 31)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogStatcast: Gordon stops 90 feet from tying Game 7
(9 - 2:58pm, Oct 31)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogNY Times: In Rare Film, White Sox Before They Were Black Sox
(9 - 2:56pm, Oct 31)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4872 - 2:55pm, Oct 31)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(652 - 2:48pm, Oct 31)
Last: Tom Cervo, backup catcher

NewsblogAFL Saguaros at Rafters
(2 - 2:33pm, Oct 31)
Last: spycake

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(28 - 2:14pm, Oct 31)
Last: There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie)

NewsblogFielding Bible
(4 - 2:03pm, Oct 31)
Last: There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie)

NewsblogAP: Sandoval, Shields Among 121 Free Agents
(2 - 1:58pm, Oct 31)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(100 - 1:51pm, Oct 31)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogTalking Ball with Jeffrey Radice – The Hardball Times
(2 - 1:47pm, Oct 31)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 0.7530 seconds
55 querie(s) executed