We Knew David Ortiz Was On Something ... Probably What A Lot Of Players Were On -- Until This Season!
spicpussy
58 career homers to his credit."
All of a sudden, he was Mo Vaughn times two. Or Jim Thome!
Speaking of ... how many of HIS HR numbers might be due to some
mystery substance?
Anyway, a number of players this season are posting BA and/or power
stats well BELOW their best:
D. Ortiz
A-Rod
Alfonso Soriano
Josh Hamilton
Hideo Matsui
Paul Konerko
Derrek Lee
Rick Ankiel
Gary Sheffield
Todd Helton
... there are more.
But perhaps none have "fallen" as far as last year's NL batting
leader, Chipper Jones. From .a 364 BA in 2008, he's having trouble
this season reaching .290. That's the biggest BA plunge among
superstars since 1938, when an ill Lou Gehrig saw his BA drop to .295
from '37's .351.
What's the point, you ask?
Simply that it's widely believed that not a few star batsmen quit the
chemicals this year because of a more stringent MLB testing policy.
Of course some guys, like Miguel Tejada and Manny, seem to be on
offensive streaks not typical of hitters in their mid-30s. Both these
guys have been tagged as users. Why stop now?
But what's to be done with the unbelievable number of batting records
broken and statistical explosions in the past decade?
Some wags propose adding some BA points and HRs to Hall of Famers'
stats, to "even things" a bit. Not even mildly realistic.
But it seems more and more as if the Hall might have to create a
special section for pre- and post-roids members.
Because if MLB loses its core of devoted statistics nuts, it might
never regain genuine credibility.
------------------
"Ortiz, Ramírez Tested Positive"
"Report: Sluggers Part of 2003 List"
By Dave Sheinin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 31, 2009
Two-thousand-three was the year the Boston Red Sox begat a Nation.
With a devastating lineup anchored by left fielder-goofball Manny
Ramírez and newly signed designated hitter-extrovert David Ortiz, they
set a record for team slugging percentage, reached 95 wins for the
first time in 17 years, came within a whisper of a World Series berth
and set the once-cursed franchise on a path that would see it win two
championships in a four-year span this decade.
But just as baseball has seen its biggest individual story lines --
including the breakings of the all-time single-season and career home
run records -- tainted by the never-ending steroid scandal, so is it
now seeing one of its most celebrated team achievements darkened by
the same stain.
In a report on its Web site Thursday, the New York Times reported that
Ortiz and Ramírez -- the charismatic and prolific sluggers who fueled
the Red Sox' title runs in both 2004 and 2007 -- tested positive for
performance-enhancing drugs in 2003.
According to the Times report, which quoted unnamed lawyers familiar
with the 2003 results, the names of both Ortiz and Ramírez appear on
the disputed list of 104 players who tested positive that year, as
baseball underwent supposedly anonymous testing on a survey basis to
gauge if the sport had a big enough steroid problem to warrant a
thorough testing program. The Times's sources did not divulge the
specific substances for which they tested positive.
While Ramírez has already been linked to performance-enhancing drugs
-- he was suspended for 50 games earlier this season for using a
female fertility drug frequently taken by steroid users to restart the
body's testosterone production -- the revelation regarding Ortiz is
particularly damaging and disconcerting for baseball, given his larger-
than-life persona and previous outspokenness about steroid use.
"Based on the way I have lived my life, I am surprised to learn I
tested positive," Ortiz said in a statement following the Red Sox' 8-5
win against the Oakland Athletics in Boston on Thursday, a game in
which his three-run homer was the difference. "I will find out what I
tested positive for. And . . . based on whatever I learn, I will share
this information with my club and the public.
"You know me -- I will not hide and I will not make excuses."
And so, the sport continues to find itself held hostage by a list of
names that was never intended to be made public, a list that has
trickled out name-by-name this season -- Alex Rodriguez in February,
Sammy Sosa in May, and now the two Red Sox stars -- even as the
federal judicial system weighs the legality of the 2004 seizure that
put it in the hands of the government in the first place.
"The active pursuit of information that may not lawfully be disclosed
because it is under court seal is a crime," baseball's players' union
said in a sharply worded statement that otherwise did not address
Thursday's disclosures. " . . . We intend to take the appropriate
legal steps to see that the court orders are enforced."
Ortiz came to Boston in 2003 as an underachieving slugger with a mere
58 career homers to his credit, a player essentially given away for
nothing by the Minnesota Twins, and emerged over the next six seasons
as the American League's most feared left-handed hitter, a perennial
all-star and the beloved "Big Papi."
When Rodriguez, prodded by the 2003 revelation, acknowledged having
used steroids from 2001 to '03 while in Texas, Ortiz suggested players
who test positive should be suspended for a full season.
"If I test positive for any kind of banned substance, I'm going to
disrespect the game, my family, my fans and everybody," he said then.
"And I don't want to face that situation, so I won't use it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003667.html
Kyle Schwitters
National Blogger
"A Cheaters HOF?"
In light of the David Ortiz "bombshell" (is it really a surprise when
you look at his production curve?) the question was asked, "Should
Canton allow dirty NFL players in?" The short answer, for me, is "no."
Granted, the NFL hasn't been tainted by PEDs quite like Major League
Baseball has, but there have been incidents and reports worth paying
attention to. Besides Shawne Merriman, there haven't been many NFL
players of note who tested dirty, but the point remains, should
cheaters be allowed to into a Hall of Fame that supposedly celebrates
careers and on-field accomplishments?
Absolutely not. Instead, I'm suggesting the creation of a cheaters
Hall of Fame. It can encompass more than one sport, allowing those who
performed at high level under the influence of PEDs to receive their
recognition -- with a slight caveat on their display plaque. Mind you,
the idea is not to allow every cheater in. Instead, you can limit
inductees to those who actually excelled in their sport, provided
their enhancements are discussed as well. Consider this a forced
segregation if you will, but perhaps it's a necessary one.
Instead of debating whether or not A-Rod or Merriman or Manny Ramirez
should be put in their respective Hall, you have a predetermined place
to celebrate these players. That way, the (increasingly) few that did
not cheat won't have their accomplishments somehow sullied if a
confessed PED user's display is located nearby. Considering the era we
are now enjoying -- that is, the "get a leg up by any means necessary"
era -- there's not much choice, really. If keeping the non-cheating
side of sport pure is a true motivation, separating the spoiled from
the not-guilty only makes sense.
And if you need a location for such a Cheater's Hall of Fame, might I
suggest Las Vegas? Considering the indirect influence gambling has on
sports, not to mention all pressure such large amounts of money
produces, directly or not, is there anyplace more fitting?
