Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mariners' Robinson Cano suspended 80 games by MLB

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    So here is my issues with Ortiz's "failed" test in 2003

    1) It was supposed to be kept confidential.
    2) The test results were simply supposed to be used to see if future testing was to be performed.
    3) The test results could not be used to suspend any player.
    4) We don't know know what banned substance was supposedly found in Ortiz's system.
    5) Commissioner Rob Manfred has stated that Ortiz's drug test may not have been reliable.

    On this "failed" test people adamantly assert that Ortiz is a "cheater". Really? I have no idea if Ortiz (or Bagwell) used PED's. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I simply don't know. And no one else either.

    Leave a comment:


  • dl4060
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post

    Right. I have no problem giving Ortiz the benefit of the doubt if there are extenuating circumstances. I have a problem with the media 1. refusing the same courtesy to ANYONE else and 2. not only offering the BOTD to only Ortiz, but creating a 6-month hero-going-away bromance tour that very few all-time greats in the history of the game have gotten.

    Most people connected to PEDs in ANY way shape or form and with ANY level of clarity got the Kangaroo Court. Ortiz got parades and awards.

    The media always had a strange fascination with Ortiz. They were more skeptical on Bagwell's PED use than Ortiz, for goodness sakes.
    Bagwell is the big problem for me. With him it was all innuendo and it (very possibly) kept him out of the hall for a number of years.

    Part of the thing about Ortiz is that he was a big part of the 2004 Red Sox, he had some big hits in the ALCS at some big times, stuff that will always be remembered in baseball history. I think that is part of why he got the send off he did. I will also add that Jeter got a send off that was much bigger than his ability on the field. I'm not saying he was not a great player, but players in Boston and New York who are high profile are more likely to get that sort of treatment, rightly or wrongly. Had Ortiz stayed in Minnesota and put up the same numbers he would not have gotten this type of sendoff.

    I will also say that the way Ortiz played later in has career, while passing every drug test, does lend some credence to the idea that he was clean. Of course, he may NEVER have been clean, he might have found a way to cheat the tests, or he could have found another BALCO, neither would surprise me. If he WAS using in 2009 and quit I would not have expected such a strong late career.
    Last edited by dl4060; 05-22-2018, 10:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dl4060
    replied
    Originally posted by PVNICK View Post
    The article just says there were positives, his name was leaked and the results were destroyed, thus there would be no "B" sample, no further testing of the sample or whatever maybe done to determine if the substance was naturally produced or exogenous, if that was even relevant, or opportunity to put forth an explanation. To state there is "considerable question about whether or not the test was legitimate" is an overstatement. All the test was, was a positive that was not subjected to confirmation. Not legitimate to me makes it sound as if the method for recording a positive was not legitimate as if they were examining chicken entrails to forecast the weather.
    The article also says that some of the results were scientifically inconclusive, potentially false positives. We don't know whether Ortiz was in that group or not, so I don't think what I said was an overstatement. We don't know, nor do we have any way of knowing now, which category Ortiz fell into. It never states conclusively that his test was one of the ones that was legitimately positive. This is the problem with leaking this kind of information.

    Leave a comment:


  • PVNICK
    replied
    Originally posted by SamtheBravesFan View Post

    If this is the case, what's your theory on why Cano dropped the appeal?
    The article was about Ortiz and Manfred trying to downplay.

    Leave a comment:


  • dominik
    replied
    One of the reasons he dropped the appeal is probably his injury. He will miss50+ games anyway with his hand injury so an appeal would mean more games missed. if he would be confident to win the appeal he might still do it but most appeals just delay the ban and are rejected and when he expects to lose it anyway it makes sense to start the suspension now when he is out anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • SamtheBravesFan
    replied
    Spot on, dl and BA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by dl4060 View Post

    http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...iled-drug-test


    There is considerable question about whether or not the Ortiz test was legitimate. This article goes into that a bit, although it would be really nice to have more details. Basically, since they were not going to suspend anyone they did not look deeply into anything. That is very unfortunate, because now I don't think there is any way for Ortiz to clear his name. If they still have the sample I guess they could retest it, but since they were not going to suspend anyone they probably did not keep what they had. I don't know that for sure of course, I'm just speculating. It is very difficult to PROVE you have not done something. For the record I never took any roids, but I don't know how I could possibly PROVE that. Without the sample to retest I don't know what options Ortiz has.

    While Bonds was found not guilty of perjury, we do know he used some Balco stuff, the Clear or the Cream. I can't remember the details. While Clemens walked I think it is pretty clear that he used. Arod and McGwire have admitted it. Palmeiro had a test that it is pretty hard to dispute. Manny also tested positive for something and could not dispute it. Those guys are all different cases than Ortiz. It is certainly possible he used, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt more so than others listed. Had Ortiz tested positive and been suspended that would be different, but Manfred stated that a test like Ortiz might not hold up today, that there was considerable scientific doubt. In my book that is enough to hold off judgment. Full disclosure, I am a Red Sox fan, but I do think Ortiz has more of a case for leniency than the others I listed.

    I am willing to give guys the benefit of the doubt if they have a good explanation, something that is plausible. I would love to hear from Cano about just what the situation is. A masking agent is tough, but there are so many things that can be used to mask that it is certainly possible that someone could use a banned substance unknowingly. That being said, when your legacy and millions of dollars are on the line it makes sense to be pretty careful. We will see if there is a reasonable explanation or not.

    Bonds, Clemens and Arod are inner circle HOF guys, not just first ballot guys. I would also put McGwire and Manny above Cano for the hall. If those guys can't get in I think Cano will have a tough time unless he can come up with a reasonable explanation. Or maybe things will change, the climate might be different in ten years. But the voters have made it pretty clear, so far anyway, that anyone who tests positive or has serious allegations against them is going to stay on the outside.

    I will also agree with the sentiment that Ortiz has gotten more of a pass than many others, probably due to his likability. McGwire was likeable, but when he would not answer questions under oath the writing on the wall was clear. I think if Ortiz were to be called to testify, and respond the way McGwire did, the pass Big Papi has gotten so far would disappear quite quickly. Bonds, Clemens and Arod were not loved like an Ortiz or a Jeter, in fact Arod and Bonds were very unpopular, so it is easy to see why man fans want to dump on them. But with Ortiz there is still considerable doubt about the validity of his positive test, and I think it is important to keep him in a different category for that reason.
    Right. I have no problem giving Ortiz the benefit of the doubt if there are extenuating circumstances. I have a problem with the media 1. refusing the same courtesy to ANYONE else and 2. not only offering the BOTD to only Ortiz, but creating a 6-month hero-going-away bromance tour that very few all-time greats in the history of the game have gotten.

    Most people connected to PEDs in ANY way shape or form and with ANY level of clarity got the Kangaroo Court. Ortiz got parades and awards.

    The media always had a strange fascination with Ortiz. They were more skeptical on Bagwell's PED use than Ortiz, for goodness sakes.
    Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 05-22-2018, 06:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SamtheBravesFan
    replied
    Originally posted by PVNICK View Post
    The article just says there were positives, his name was leaked and the results were destroyed, thus there would be no "B" sample, no further testing of the sample or whatever maybe done to determine if the substance was naturally produced or exogenous, if that was even relevant, or opportunity to put forth an explanation. To state there is "considerable question about whether or not the test was legitimate" is an overstatement. All the test was, was a positive that was not subjected to confirmation. Not legitimate to me makes it sound as if the method for recording a positive was not legitimate as if they were examining chicken entrails to forecast the weather.
    If this is the case, what's your theory on why Cano dropped the appeal?

    Leave a comment:


  • PVNICK
    replied
    The article just says there were positives, his name was leaked and the results were destroyed, thus there would be no "B" sample, no further testing of the sample or whatever maybe done to determine if the substance was naturally produced or exogenous, if that was even relevant, or opportunity to put forth an explanation. To state there is "considerable question about whether or not the test was legitimate" is an overstatement. All the test was, was a positive that was not subjected to confirmation. Not legitimate to me makes it sound as if the method for recording a positive was not legitimate as if they were examining chicken entrails to forecast the weather.

    Leave a comment:


  • dl4060
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post

    Does Ortiz count as "tested positive?" Cuz Ortiz is certainly going in.

    I am not saying I don't believe Ortiz. There was certainly a lot of questions re: that whole thing and I will give him the BOTD (though I don't have him in my HOF regardless). That being said, the media believed him with very little push back. A benefit of the doubt they have never given anyone else.
    http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...iled-drug-test


    There is considerable question about whether or not the Ortiz test was legitimate. This article goes into that a bit, although it would be really nice to have more details. Basically, since they were not going to suspend anyone they did not look deeply into anything. That is very unfortunate, because now I don't think there is any way for Ortiz to clear his name. If they still have the sample I guess they could retest it, but since they were not going to suspend anyone they probably did not keep what they had. I don't know that for sure of course, I'm just speculating. It is very difficult to PROVE you have not done something. For the record I never took any roids, but I don't know how I could possibly PROVE that. Without the sample to retest I don't know what options Ortiz has.

    While Bonds was found not guilty of perjury, we do know he used some Balco stuff, the Clear or the Cream. I can't remember the details. While Clemens walked I think it is pretty clear that he used. Arod and McGwire have admitted it. Palmeiro had a test that it is pretty hard to dispute. Manny also tested positive for something and could not dispute it. Those guys are all different cases than Ortiz. It is certainly possible he used, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt more so than others listed. Had Ortiz tested positive and been suspended that would be different, but Manfred stated that a test like Ortiz might not hold up today, that there was considerable scientific doubt. In my book that is enough to hold off judgment. Full disclosure, I am a Red Sox fan, but I do think Ortiz has more of a case for leniency than the others I listed.

    I am willing to give guys the benefit of the doubt if they have a good explanation, something that is plausible. I would love to hear from Cano about just what the situation is. A masking agent is tough, but there are so many things that can be used to mask that it is certainly possible that someone could use a banned substance unknowingly. That being said, when your legacy and millions of dollars are on the line it makes sense to be pretty careful. We will see if there is a reasonable explanation or not.

    Bonds, Clemens and Arod are inner circle HOF guys, not just first ballot guys. I would also put McGwire and Manny above Cano for the hall. If those guys can't get in I think Cano will have a tough time unless he can come up with a reasonable explanation. Or maybe things will change, the climate might be different in ten years. But the voters have made it pretty clear, so far anyway, that anyone who tests positive or has serious allegations against them is going to stay on the outside.

    I will also agree with the sentiment that Ortiz has gotten more of a pass than many others, probably due to his likability. McGwire was likeable, but when he would not answer questions under oath the writing on the wall was clear. I think if Ortiz were to be called to testify, and respond the way McGwire did, the pass Big Papi has gotten so far would disappear quite quickly. Bonds, Clemens and Arod were not loved like an Ortiz or a Jeter, in fact Arod and Bonds were very unpopular, so it is easy to see why man fans want to dump on them. But with Ortiz there is still considerable doubt about the validity of his positive test, and I think it is important to keep him in a different category for that reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • SamtheBravesFan
    replied
    Fair point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    It was enough to trigger a suspension. There are a number of people who support Bonds and Clemens (like Jaffe and Davidoff) who've drawn the line at anyone who's been suspended since the official testing system was implemented (and thus have said they won't vote for Rodriguez or Ramirez.) Unless they change their standards, that should cover Cano's case, as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post

    Cano didn't test positive for a PED.
    He tested positive for a known masking agent. Make of that what you will.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by White Knight View Post

    Not just that. No one that tested positive has ever gotten in the HOF.
    Cano didn't test positive for a PED.

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    If Palmeiro with his 569 home runs, 23,020 hits, 1,835 RBI, 1,663 runs was bumped off the HoF ballot on his first try it doesn't look good for Cano. However, Cano will not on the HoF ballot for probably at least decade so things may be viewed very differently by then. Who knows?
    Jeez, with 23,020 hits how can they keep him out? He must have had some really good drugs.
    Last edited by ol' aches and pains; 05-19-2018, 05:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X