Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nomar, post: 5058486, member: 651"] Sosa last played in 2005. His career tailed off after 2003. Coincidentally, MLB announced its new drug policy in 2004. That policy included surprise off-season testing. Ortiz continued to play well -- all while getting tested over and over and over. The "joke" testing has snagged hundreds of offenders since 2004: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_performance-enhancing_drugs"]List of Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs - Wikipedia[/URL] Admitting that Giambi and Clemens used PEDs doesn't mean anything more than me admitting that Manny used them. Pretty easy to admit something as to which there is irrefutable proof. Oh, and about that "list": [I]Because the list of players was seized as part of a government investigation and is currently under court-ordered seal pending the outcome of litigation, Weiner said the players union was unable to provide Ortiz with any details about his test result, including what substance he tested positive for. On the same day, both Major League Baseball[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ortiz#cite_note-2003_list_more_names_than_positive_tests-116'][116][/URL] and the Major League Baseball Players Association issued statements[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ortiz#cite_note-MLBPA_statement_on_Ortiz-117'][117][/URL] pointing out that because of several factors, any player appearing on the list compiled by federal investigators in 2003 did not necessarily test positive for performance-enhancing drugs. Among those factors were that the total number of players said to be on the list far exceeded the number of collected specimens that tested positive. In addition, there were questions raised regarding the lab that performed the testing and their interpretation of the positive tests. Also, the statement pointed out that certain legal supplements that were available over the counter at the time could cause a positive test result.[/I] So, just so I have this straight, the post-2004 drug policy involving random surprise testing is a "joke" but a 2003 list that MLB has basically called a "joke" is concrete evidence. Do I understand your position correctly? You're proud of yourself, rightly so, for ordinarily requiring evidence of guilt before you label someone a criminal. But in this case you're "calling it straight" based on a list that MLB has completely washed its hands of. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach