we all knew it had to come out, right
the ny times has broken the story that both manny ramirez and david ortiz appeared on the list of mlb players testing positive for PED's in 2003.
and we all knew it had to come out, right?
in '02, ortiz was a washed up and mediocre ballplayer that minnesota couldn't even trade, so they cut him. suddenly, in boston, as manny's teammate, big papi hit 30+ homers and 100+ rbi, and continued in that same way for the next four years, right up until MLB finally got serious about their testing, and, in much the same precipitous way that his stroke had surfaced, it all but disappeared again.
watching jim ed rice choose his words on this story is fascinating. his hope? that mlb exposes ALL the players who were juicing, and not just hanging out the big names to dry in the fickle winds of public opinion.
i've said it before, and i'll say it again--david ortiz stands for me as the greatest clutch hitter i have ever seen, and, possibly, has ever been. but it's also possibly true that the playing field wasn't level for him, and that's, i think, a big reason why jim rice is in the hall of fame today, and deservedly so.
there are some other '04 and '07 sox i'm convinced were also juicing, and their fall-off in production in '08 and '09 are my primary reasons why. (and, around the league, you can immediately see that they aren't alone). to jim's point, i think it's fair that they are stood up to be counted among those whose performances were enhanced by drugs and not simply by hard work and dedication.
and we all knew it had to come out, right?
in '02, ortiz was a washed up and mediocre ballplayer that minnesota couldn't even trade, so they cut him. suddenly, in boston, as manny's teammate, big papi hit 30+ homers and 100+ rbi, and continued in that same way for the next four years, right up until MLB finally got serious about their testing, and, in much the same precipitous way that his stroke had surfaced, it all but disappeared again.
watching jim ed rice choose his words on this story is fascinating. his hope? that mlb exposes ALL the players who were juicing, and not just hanging out the big names to dry in the fickle winds of public opinion.
i've said it before, and i'll say it again--david ortiz stands for me as the greatest clutch hitter i have ever seen, and, possibly, has ever been. but it's also possibly true that the playing field wasn't level for him, and that's, i think, a big reason why jim rice is in the hall of fame today, and deservedly so.
there are some other '04 and '07 sox i'm convinced were also juicing, and their fall-off in production in '08 and '09 are my primary reasons why. (and, around the league, you can immediately see that they aren't alone). to jim's point, i think it's fair that they are stood up to be counted among those whose performances were enhanced by drugs and not simply by hard work and dedication.
Labels: baseball
posted by kad barma at 1:20 PM
3 Comments:
I have some mixed feelings—not that I didn't love my Mother-in-Law, but it reminds one of the old description of mixed emotions—watching your Mother-in-Law drive off a cliff in your new Jag.
Quoting the article, "Some of baseball’s most cherished story lines of the past decade have been tainted by performance-enhancing drugs..."
The other cherished story line tainted by this is that lawyers are ethical people. Again quoting the article, "The lawyers spoke anonymously because the testing information was under seal by a court order."
They WHAT?!?!?
The lawyers didn't understand "under seal"?
I am disappointed that David Ortiz was doping, but it is a game, a past time. It sucks too many hours out of my life and keeps me up to midnight some days, but it is a game.
The law is what protects us from the Government and each other and its integrity is fundamental to our success as a society. Otherwise we become like Sicily.
While maybe we should deny Cooperstown to David Ortiz, we should find the lawyers and string them up from the nearest lamp pole, and then quickly cut them down so we can then disbar them for ever, including their offspring down to the seventh generation.
OK, I over-reacted. Make that the fifth generation.
On the other hand, The New York Times is probably home free; First Amendment and all that.
Regards — Cliff
I keep pondering the fact that the PED's weren't illegal, and neither were they against any rule in the book of major league baseball. These guys were actually guilty of nothing more than giving us what they thought we wanted, and, if the attendance figures and the adulation heaped upon them is any indication, they weren't entirely wrong, either. And now we turn on them and act as if we weren't, as well, complicit.
The fact that the testing was promised to be anonymous, and wasn't, and then the results were promised to be destroyed, and weren't, and, crowning it all, everything was supposedly to remain sealed, and isn't, puts the whole world on tremendously shaky ground, regardless of the dishonesty of it all.
We all need to get a grip. I didn't imagine the home runs that redeemed my lifelong relationship with the Red Sox, and I won't forget them now, even though I know there was more to them than met the innocent eye. Face it--the pitchers Papi faced were likely juicing too...
Kad Barma hit my point about the pitchers Juicing too. I say that if the rules didn't prohibit it and the PEDs in question were, in fact, legal, then all's fair.
On the other hand, MLB is in deep doo doo with me for lying to the players about anonymous+secret testing. Off with their heads (but I'll settle for the anti-trust exemption).
the other cliff
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home