I suppose Josh Reddick and Jed Lowrie are also unclean as you guys put it as they also hit long home runs tonight. Big Papi had been tested and come up clean numerous times. Reddick's shot hit the restaurant window in deep right field at Safeco field and put Boston up to stay in a 6-4 Sox victory.
2009 ESPN story about David Ortiz and steroids:
NEW YORK -- David Ortiz believes then-legal supplements and vitamins likely caused him to land on a 2003 list of alleged drug users seized by the federal government, and Major League Baseball and the players' association said some of the players on the list never tested positive for performance-enhancing substances.
MLB said in a statement Saturday that 96 urine samples, at most, tested positive in the 2003 survey -- and the players' association said 13 of those were in dispute.
The government seized the samples and records of 104 players from baseball's drug-testing companies in 2004 as part of the BALCO investigation into Barry Bonds and others. The list of players said to have tested positive, attached to a grand jury subpoena, is part of a five-year legal fight, with the union trying to force the government to return what federal agents took during raids.
"I definitely was a little bit careless back in those days when I was buying supplements and vitamins over the counter -- legal supplements, legal vitamins over the counter -- but I never buy steroids or use steroids," Ortiz said during a news conference that began about 3½ hours before his Boston Red Sox played the New York Yankees.
"I never thought that buying supplements and vitamins, it was going to hurt anybody's feelings."
The New York Times reported last month that Ortiz and Manny Ramirez were on the 2003 list and said earlier that Sammy Sosa was on it. In February, Sports Illustrated reported Alex Rodriguez was on it, and Rodriguez later admitted he had used performance-enhancing substances from 2001 to 2003.
Ortiz said when he met with union lawyer Michael Weiner in 2004, he wasn't told he tested positive for steroids. Weiner, who has been designated to succeed union head Donald Fehr, said that because the list is under court seal, the union couldn't confirm to Ortiz that he tested positive, only that he was on the list.
"I want to apologize to fans for the distraction, my teammates, our manager," Ortiz said, flanked by Weiner, with Boston manager Terry Francona standing behind and to the side. "This past week has been a nightmare to me."
Some players past and present -- notably Hall of Famer Hank Aaron -- have called for the entire list to be released.
"Sure, there are some people who say 'Why don't we just get this story over with and get the list out?'" Weiner said. "I think to do that would one, be illegal, and two, be wrong. It's illegal because it's covered by court order, and it would be wrong because a promise was made by the commissioner's office and the union to every player who was tested in 2003 that the results would be anonymous."
Ortiz is against the list becoming public.
"I don't think that I would really like to see another player going through what I've been through this past week," he said.
Said Francona: "I was very proud of the way David handled himself, which shouldn't be a surprise. It's been a long 10 days for him. And as David spoke and Michael spoke, it became more apparent, some of the things that David was dealing with. When we asked for patience, there was a lot of things explained, why there needed to be patience."
Ortiz said he has tested negative about 15 times since 2004, when baseball's drug-testing program included penalties, and has tested negative for the World Baseball Classic.
The Red Sox issued a statement backing their slugger.
"There are substantial uncertainties and ambiguity surrounding the list of 104 names," the Red Sox said. "David Ortiz is a team leader, and his contributions on the field and in the community have earned him respect and a special place in the hearts of Red Sox Nation."
Ortiz said the report that he was on the list weighed on him -- since it came out July 30, he is batting .188 with two homers and six RBIs, part of a season-long slump.
"This past week, I've been really confused and frustrated," he said. "I started looking for answers, and nobody gives me an answer."
Citing court orders, Weiner wouldn't say whether the union asked courts to authorize an investigation into the leaks, which it claims are illegal. New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis did not respond to an e-mail and telephone message seeking comment.
Weiner did say if the union wins the legal fight to have the records returned -- a fight that may end up before the Supreme Court -- it likely would comply with requests from players on the list to tell them what they were said to have used.
"Given the uncertainties inherent in the list, we urge the press and the public to use caution in reaching conclusions based on leaks of names, particularly from sources whose identities are not revealed," Major League Baseball said in a statement.
Three U.S. District Courts have sided with the union, saying the material must be returned by the government. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecutors, but that decision was thrown out and 11 judges from the 9th Circuit heard arguments last December. A decision is pending.
Weiner said Ortiz had been put in a difficult position.
"His reputation has been called into question. He does not know specifically why. And he can't get the information that would allow him to offer a full explanation," Weiner said.
The 2003 survey was designed to determine whether baseball needed mandatory random drug testing with penalties starting in 2004, with a 5 percent threshold for positives triggering future testing. Although the exact number of 2003 positives was subject to dispute, the sides never worked that out because they agreed the percentage was over the threshold.
"Substantial scientific questions exist as to the interpretation of some of the 2003 test results," Weiner said. "The more definitive methods that are utilized by the lab that administers the current drug agreement were not utilized by the lab responsible for the anonymous testing program in 2003."
Under the rules of the 2003 testing, Weiner said "legally available nutritional supplements could trigger an initial 'positive' test under our program."
In the statement, he also elaborated on how the 2003 survey tests were conducted. According to Weiner, each test consisted of two sample collections. The first was random and unannounced. The second was taken seven days later, with the player advised to "cease taking supplements during the interim."
"Under the 2003 program, a test could be initially reported as 'positive,' but not treated as such by the bargaining parties on account of the second test," Weiner said.
ESPN
--------------
I understand that there are a lot of Red Sox non fans around this site but to simply say Ortiz is on steroids because he has 23 homers or so is baseless. The same could be said for other players around baseball including guys like Curtis Granderson or Mark Texeira etc...
wil.
2009 ESPN story about David Ortiz and steroids:
NEW YORK -- David Ortiz believes then-legal supplements and vitamins likely caused him to land on a 2003 list of alleged drug users seized by the federal government, and Major League Baseball and the players' association said some of the players on the list never tested positive for performance-enhancing substances.
MLB said in a statement Saturday that 96 urine samples, at most, tested positive in the 2003 survey -- and the players' association said 13 of those were in dispute.
The government seized the samples and records of 104 players from baseball's drug-testing companies in 2004 as part of the BALCO investigation into Barry Bonds and others. The list of players said to have tested positive, attached to a grand jury subpoena, is part of a five-year legal fight, with the union trying to force the government to return what federal agents took during raids.
"I definitely was a little bit careless back in those days when I was buying supplements and vitamins over the counter -- legal supplements, legal vitamins over the counter -- but I never buy steroids or use steroids," Ortiz said during a news conference that began about 3½ hours before his Boston Red Sox played the New York Yankees.
"I never thought that buying supplements and vitamins, it was going to hurt anybody's feelings."
The New York Times reported last month that Ortiz and Manny Ramirez were on the 2003 list and said earlier that Sammy Sosa was on it. In February, Sports Illustrated reported Alex Rodriguez was on it, and Rodriguez later admitted he had used performance-enhancing substances from 2001 to 2003.
Ortiz said when he met with union lawyer Michael Weiner in 2004, he wasn't told he tested positive for steroids. Weiner, who has been designated to succeed union head Donald Fehr, said that because the list is under court seal, the union couldn't confirm to Ortiz that he tested positive, only that he was on the list.
"I want to apologize to fans for the distraction, my teammates, our manager," Ortiz said, flanked by Weiner, with Boston manager Terry Francona standing behind and to the side. "This past week has been a nightmare to me."
Some players past and present -- notably Hall of Famer Hank Aaron -- have called for the entire list to be released.
"Sure, there are some people who say 'Why don't we just get this story over with and get the list out?'" Weiner said. "I think to do that would one, be illegal, and two, be wrong. It's illegal because it's covered by court order, and it would be wrong because a promise was made by the commissioner's office and the union to every player who was tested in 2003 that the results would be anonymous."
Ortiz is against the list becoming public.
"I don't think that I would really like to see another player going through what I've been through this past week," he said.
Said Francona: "I was very proud of the way David handled himself, which shouldn't be a surprise. It's been a long 10 days for him. And as David spoke and Michael spoke, it became more apparent, some of the things that David was dealing with. When we asked for patience, there was a lot of things explained, why there needed to be patience."
Ortiz said he has tested negative about 15 times since 2004, when baseball's drug-testing program included penalties, and has tested negative for the World Baseball Classic.
The Red Sox issued a statement backing their slugger.
"There are substantial uncertainties and ambiguity surrounding the list of 104 names," the Red Sox said. "David Ortiz is a team leader, and his contributions on the field and in the community have earned him respect and a special place in the hearts of Red Sox Nation."
Ortiz said the report that he was on the list weighed on him -- since it came out July 30, he is batting .188 with two homers and six RBIs, part of a season-long slump.
"This past week, I've been really confused and frustrated," he said. "I started looking for answers, and nobody gives me an answer."
Citing court orders, Weiner wouldn't say whether the union asked courts to authorize an investigation into the leaks, which it claims are illegal. New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis did not respond to an e-mail and telephone message seeking comment.
Weiner did say if the union wins the legal fight to have the records returned -- a fight that may end up before the Supreme Court -- it likely would comply with requests from players on the list to tell them what they were said to have used.
"Given the uncertainties inherent in the list, we urge the press and the public to use caution in reaching conclusions based on leaks of names, particularly from sources whose identities are not revealed," Major League Baseball said in a statement.
Three U.S. District Courts have sided with the union, saying the material must be returned by the government. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecutors, but that decision was thrown out and 11 judges from the 9th Circuit heard arguments last December. A decision is pending.
Weiner said Ortiz had been put in a difficult position.
"His reputation has been called into question. He does not know specifically why. And he can't get the information that would allow him to offer a full explanation," Weiner said.
The 2003 survey was designed to determine whether baseball needed mandatory random drug testing with penalties starting in 2004, with a 5 percent threshold for positives triggering future testing. Although the exact number of 2003 positives was subject to dispute, the sides never worked that out because they agreed the percentage was over the threshold.
"Substantial scientific questions exist as to the interpretation of some of the 2003 test results," Weiner said. "The more definitive methods that are utilized by the lab that administers the current drug agreement were not utilized by the lab responsible for the anonymous testing program in 2003."
Under the rules of the 2003 testing, Weiner said "legally available nutritional supplements could trigger an initial 'positive' test under our program."
In the statement, he also elaborated on how the 2003 survey tests were conducted. According to Weiner, each test consisted of two sample collections. The first was random and unannounced. The second was taken seven days later, with the player advised to "cease taking supplements during the interim."
"Under the 2003 program, a test could be initially reported as 'positive,' but not treated as such by the bargaining parties on account of the second test," Weiner said.
ESPN
--------------
I understand that there are a lot of Red Sox non fans around this site but to simply say Ortiz is on steroids because he has 23 homers or so is baseless. The same could be said for other players around baseball including guys like Curtis Granderson or Mark Texeira etc...
wil.
Wil, gun to your head you think Papi never did anything? Just became the best clutch hitter in the league out of nowhere starting in '03 after being a total bust for the Twins?
I could careless if he did something, I'm not even a very big baseball fan but gun to my head I'm betting on he took a needle at some point in time.
Funny FZ said he would bet he was roid free too.
I could careless if he did something, I'm not even a very big baseball fan but gun to my head I'm betting on he took a needle at some point in time.
Funny FZ said he would bet he was roid free too.
Actually Ortiz was not a total bust in Minnesota, in 2002 his last year there. he hit 20 HRs with 75 RBI with a .272 B.Ave. in 125 games (412 official at bats). Big Papi only had 17 more hits in 36 more official at bats for Boston in 2003. Had he stayed in Minnesota there is no telling what his numbers would have been. Hitting behind a scary in those days Manny Ramirez didn't hurt him much nor did hitting in friendly Fenway Park 81 games a year.
There is no way of telling what he did regarding PEDs back then but I am confident he is playing on natrual ability these days..The guy can flat out hit even though he can have slumps at times, usually early in the season when the weather is still cold in Boston and many other cities..
The proof of the pudding is his consistency for the last 8 years, there is no way he could pass all those random drug tests if he wasn't clean and still be one of the top sluggers in baseball. During the prime steroid years (McGwire and Sosa etc) Ortiz was not hitting home runs, his first big year was 41 homers for Boston in 2004..
The Red Sox picked him up as a prospect more than an established star, and inserted him into a dangerous lineup which helped him blossomed into a terrific hitter. I have no way of knowing if he used a needle or not. I do know he came up clean multiple times after random drug tests starting in 2004.
These days baseball fans or maybe that is the wrong word, lets make it followers, believe because of what Barry Bonds is being accused of (and is probably guilty of), everyone automatically thinks that if you hit 50 HR's you must be on something. That is not necessarily the case with many power hitters. I can't prove one way or another about Ortiz but like I said these days it is pretty hard to get away with using PEDs in the majors without getting caught. I think a lot of what is helping Big Papi these days is he is getting pitches he can hit due to the lineup he is hitting in the middle of...
Quite frankly, I could careless what the Red Sox haters think. I know there is no changing their minds so why try.
wil.
There is no way of telling what he did regarding PEDs back then but I am confident he is playing on natrual ability these days..The guy can flat out hit even though he can have slumps at times, usually early in the season when the weather is still cold in Boston and many other cities..
The proof of the pudding is his consistency for the last 8 years, there is no way he could pass all those random drug tests if he wasn't clean and still be one of the top sluggers in baseball. During the prime steroid years (McGwire and Sosa etc) Ortiz was not hitting home runs, his first big year was 41 homers for Boston in 2004..
The Red Sox picked him up as a prospect more than an established star, and inserted him into a dangerous lineup which helped him blossomed into a terrific hitter. I have no way of knowing if he used a needle or not. I do know he came up clean multiple times after random drug tests starting in 2004.
These days baseball fans or maybe that is the wrong word, lets make it followers, believe because of what Barry Bonds is being accused of (and is probably guilty of), everyone automatically thinks that if you hit 50 HR's you must be on something. That is not necessarily the case with many power hitters. I can't prove one way or another about Ortiz but like I said these days it is pretty hard to get away with using PEDs in the majors without getting caught. I think a lot of what is helping Big Papi these days is he is getting pitches he can hit due to the lineup he is hitting in the middle of...
Quite frankly, I could careless what the Red Sox haters think. I know there is no changing their minds so why try.
wil.
I'm a REd Sox fan so I don't really care. When I say I'd bet he did PEDs, I mean him and a large # of other baseball players too.
Sure plenty NFL guys on HGH too, not really trying to pretend pro sports is all safe and clean.
For you to call McGwire/Sosa the "prime steroid years" shows a lot of naivety on your part. The prime steroid years stopped BEFORE the testing began? Yeah ok. The "Prime-steroid years" obviously didn't stop until '04 when the testing began or whatever.
Again I could careless, its baseball. Hell I hope they do more steroids maybe it would make a game watchable. However, you sound like a 13 year old kid proving his favorite players are pure and wholesome superhero's.
Patsfan1283 - For the record (naive or not) Mark McGwire hit career high numbers of 70 homers in 1998 and 65 in 1999. Sammy Sosa also had career highs with 66 hrs in 98 and one less than he hit in 2001 with 63 in 99. David Ortiz a rookie in 1998 had 9 homers that year and none in 1999. If those were not the prime steroid years I am not sure when they were..Barry Bonds only broke 50 homers in a season once which was in 2001 with 73 which was obviously an extension of the era but again Ortiz was not part of it with only 18 Hrs in 2001. By 2004 McGwire was out of baseball, Sosa hit a routine for him 35 homers and Bonds hit a routine for him 45 in 2004. These numbers are a long way from the numbers these players recorded in the late 90s and Bonds in 2001.
The top six individual home run hitting seasons:
1. Barry Bonds 73 2001
2. Mark McGwire 70 1998
3. Sammy Sosa 66 1998
4. Mark McGwire 65 1999
5. Sammy Sosa 64 2001
6. Sammy Sosa 63 1999
IMHO the late 90s and the very early 2000s were the prime steroid years when it comes to hitting home runs...
wil..
The top six individual home run hitting seasons:
1. Barry Bonds 73 2001
2. Mark McGwire 70 1998
3. Sammy Sosa 66 1998
4. Mark McGwire 65 1999
5. Sammy Sosa 64 2001
6. Sammy Sosa 63 1999
IMHO the late 90s and the very early 2000s were the prime steroid years when it comes to hitting home runs...
wil..
