Say it ain't so, Papi

The New York Times reports David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez "were among the roughly 100 Major League Baseball players to test positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003, according to lawyers with knowledge of the results."



    Free tagging: 


    shocker.and i thought the

    By on

    shocker.and i thought the red sox left the wrong doing to all of those other teams.

    No surprise there

    I never thought we won cleanly. No one did!! I hope that whole list is made public.

    I won't disagree with the

    I won't disagree with the notion that everybody was doing it. But I'm not sure how you can imply it wasn't a fair win, given that everyone was doing it.

    You just said it yourself...

    By on

    "given that everyone was doing it"

    The fact that everyone was doing it means that it was a level playing field. Do I like that fact? no. But it's not an advantage at all if everyone was doing it.

    Has anyone else noticed that a New York paper only leaked the names of Boston players on that list? I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

    Yes, it's a conspiracy

    By on

    Yes, it's a conspiracy against the Red Sox launched by the New York Times Company, owners of the Red Sox. Of course. Those evil New Yorkers.

    perhaps because names of

    By on

    perhaps because names of others have already been announced?
    or evil conspiracy. it was clever, leaking names that were already obvious~

    A Pox on an Entire Era of Baseball?

    Rereading (for oh, about the 10th time) Jim Bouton's masterful Ball Four, I'm reminded that some ballplayers in the late 60s and early 70s routinely gulped down energy-boosting and pain-killing "greenies" to give them a desired boost.

    Are the performance-enhancing drugs used during this 'roid era so qualitatively different and more powerful that we should take a boatload of statistics and seasons and basically label them forever tainted?

    I dunno.

    All Eras Have Their Qualifiers

    By on

    As David so correctly begins to point out, all eras of the sport have their qualifiers.

    The easy ones? Prior to the 20's, it was a dead ball. Prior to the late 40's, there were no black players allowed in the game. Amphetamine usage came into vogue in the 60's. Drug usage, of the non-PED variety, was rampant during the 70's and 80's. The most significant rules change in the history of baseball, other than changing from the dead ball, occurred in the late 60's, when the pitchers mound was lowered from 15 inches to 10 inches.

    Do all of those eras deserve asterisks or other notations in the record books? Perhaps. But, in the long run, nobody but the diehard fans give a shit. And those diehard fans already use that knowledge when evaluating era compared to era. The asterisks are useful only to those who don't know the game's history to begin with.

    By the way, it's my opinion that you shouldn't even be allowed into this discussion if you haven't read Ball Four :-)