Ortiz' positive PED test from 03

[steveringo]

Apparently he never got an answer:

No. Nobody. Not MLB. Not the Players Association. Nobody. They just threw it out there that I tested positive on this one list and that was it. Nothing. So I have to deal with that, and your mind is all over the place. And I’ve lived with it.
I don’t think I’m going to have a worse year than ’09 and I came out of it. That’s the one thing I look at and the one thing I tell myself, “If you survive through that, you’re a warrior.” A lot of things went down that year. Things I had nothing to do with. It was somebody was trying to hurt me.
It is something that is still in the dark because nobody ever had the [guts] to come to me and say, ‘This is what was happening.’ You damaged my image at the time, and it has always stayed like that. No explanation. No nothing.
A lot of things happen in your career that has to do with bad people trying to do stupid things.
​

My guess is he never really asked....

David Ortiz is still flummoxed by his positive drug test from 2003 | The Strike Zone - SI.com

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Apparently he never got an answer:

My guess is he never really asked....

David Ortiz is still flummoxed by his positive drug test from 2003 | The Strike Zone - SI.com

Yup. Deadspin had a column about it and pointed out how he shouldn't be mad about the positive test (he obviously is aware that he was doing something), he should be mad that his name was even on the sample, and that his name was one of the few that were leaked.

The fact that the 2003 list is out there isn't that we don't get to see who is on it, it's that the list exists at all. That tells me that MLB violated the terms of their agreement and did not act in good faith when they conducted the survey. That was supposed to be a completely anonymous survey. Not only should there not be a list of names, the samples never should have been labeled with anything but a number. Names should have never been attached to the samples, whether positive or negative. The testing company would have to label them in some fashion for the player's safety, as in, if the test revealed that the player had some sort of infection or disease, the testing company should have some method to identify the player and notify him, but that's as far as it goes.

 

[gunnarthor]

Yup. Deadspin had a column about it and pointed out how he shouldn't be mad about the positive test (he obviously is aware that he was doing something), he should be mad that his name was even on the sample, and that his name was one of the few that were leaked.

The fact that the 2003 list is out there isn't that we don't get to see who is on it, it's that the list exists at all. That tells me that MLB violated the terms of their agreement and did not act in good faith when they conducted the survey. That was supposed to be a completely anonymous survey. Not only should there not be a list of names, the samples never should have been labeled with anything but a number. Names should have never been attached to the samples, whether positive or negative. The testing company would have to label them in some fashion for the player's safety, as in, if the test revealed that the player had some sort of infection or disease, the testing company should have some method to identify the player and notify him, but that's as far as it goes.

IIRC, I believe it was the players union who mucked things up. The company numbered every sample but the union made them keep a list of names to correspond to the samples (or maybe SOP would have required the list anyway but the union got ahold of the list). They wanted a reference sheet so that they, the union, could go to its players and tell them that they failed. (The cynic might suggest that the union was going to tell which players needed to do a better job hiding their use). In any event, the lists that were leaked did not come from MLB but from the union.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

IIRC, I believe it was the players union who mucked things up. The company numbered every sample but the union made them keep a list of names to correspond to the samples (or maybe SOP would have required the list anyway but the union got ahold of the list). They wanted a reference sheet so that they, the union, could go to its players and tell them that they failed. (The cynic might suggest that the union was going to tell which players needed to do a better job hiding their use). In any event, the lists that were leaked did not come from MLB but from the union.

Interesting. That's the first I've heard that. If that's the case, then my post can be disregarded. But that doesn't make a lot of sense.

However, after they leaked A-Rod's name, he went to MLB and they confirmed that he failed a test. How would MLB know unless they had the list? And why would the MLBPA leak names from the list?

 

[gunnarthor]

Interesting. That's the first I've heard that. If that's the case, then my post can be disregarded. But that doesn't make a lot of sense.

However, after they leaked A-Rod's name, he went to MLB and they confirmed that he failed a test. How would MLB know unless they had the list? And why would the MLBPA leak names from the list?

Both MLB and the union had a copy of the list. MLB was supposed to destroy their list when the union did. But the union wanted to keep the list to fight some of the results - I think it was the second in command that got blamed for all this. Anyhow, the leaks came from the union side, not MLB. Jon Heyman actually wrote that he had a copy of the entire list but couldn't get a confirmation that the list was the real list. But he implied he got it from an agent who got it from a union guy.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Both MLB and the union had a copy of the list. MLB was supposed to destroy their list when the union did. But the union wanted to keep the list to fight some of the results - I think it was the second in command that got blamed for all this. Anyhow, the leaks came from the union side, not MLB. Jon Heyman actually wrote that he had a copy of the entire list but couldn't get a confirmation that the list was the real list. But he implied he got it from an agent who got it from a union guy.

Very interesting. This is all news to me, but I know you're a knowledgeable guy. It's still puzzling why the union would leak the names of their own players (other than for pure profit, of course).