NY Times: Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz On 2003 Steroid List

by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 30, 2009 12:34 PM EDT

The information about Ramirez and Ortiz emerged through interviews with multiple lawyers and others connected to the pending litigation. The lawyers spoke anonymously because the testing information is under seal by a court order. The lawyers did not identify which drugs were detected.

Is anybody shocked anymore?

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Not shocked

I would start getting all trollish like the Red SOx fans did when A-Rod was outed.

Taints their WS wins I would say tho.

by FreeBradshaw on Jul 30, 2009 1:06 PM EDT reply actions

strip them of the '04 and '07 titles

by Aquamelli on Jul 30, 2009 1:21 PM EDT reply actions

What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.

by winchester5 on Jul 30, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions

NOT AT ALL!!!

just release the rest of the names and get it over with, honestly who gives a flying fuck!

Pujols takes out "I" in BIG and "A" in MAC, previously considered to be an unyielding, consonant threat

by DESTROYER on Jul 30, 2009 1:26 PM EDT reply actions

I dont know what a flying fuck is but i certainly dont give one about who was on steroids.

Im with you, lets just hear all of them and oohhh and ahhh and be over with it.

by winchester5 on Jul 30, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions

disappointment but no shock

Or even surprise.

I kind of like the slow leaking of names, as it serves as a reminder of the problems that existed, and that there hasn’t been closure, apologies or even the slightest acknowledgement of responsibiilty from anyone in a position of power: not the commissioner, not the players union. They haven’t acted to fix this or address how to deal with the past decade and the stats accumulated during the steroids era.

Until that happens, let this be a thorn in Selig and Fehr’s asses, and may it sting every time they twitch a cheek.

by 18 Mile on Jul 30, 2009 2:27 PM EDT reply actions

No surprise

Look at how his numbers and body fell apart after MLB instituted the new testing rules.

Sad to say, but any time I see a player go from stud to dud in the past 2 years, I immediately think juicer. Like Russell Martin, Magglio Ordonez, and several Mets, just off the top of my head. Not that I have any sort of evidence, but their drop-offs seem to suspiciously coincide with the new drug testing rules.

by The R on Jul 30, 2009 4:18 PM EDT reply actions

Do you think Sheffield?

Man, with this outfield, need to get rid of that Rasmus guy. :)

by Taskmaster on Jul 31, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions

Well we know Shef was using. I think his dropoff is a combination of not using and age. Mostly age at this point. His swing is all about bat speed. From what I know, that’s the thing about HGH. It doesn’t actually make you stronger or faster. What it does is it gives you a “younger” body. Your body recovers faster and doesn’t wear down as much. Which allows players (like Shef or Bonds) to be productive at older ages. In the past, once a guy was over 35, there was a dropoff in production and the start of a retirement watch.

BTW, considering what I’ve seen lately, I’d add Smoltz and Penny to that list. Again, no evidence, and those guys are just plain old, but given the climate, one has to be suspicious. Put another way, Smoltz in 2006 was 39, it was extremely unusual for a guy to still have a 90+ MPH fastball. Virtually unheard of.

by The R on Aug 7, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Steroids adversity...

The Red Sox actually started winning once MLB tested for Steroids, not before. I think we know who won a lot of championships when steroids wasn’t being tested. There is no taint on the Red Sox for winning with Steroids, unless someone proves that MLB covered up a positive test in 2004 or 2007. That other team that hasn’t had a championship in the ‘Testing Era’ certainly carries more adversity from Steroids.

by TomF on Jul 31, 2009 9:55 AM EDT reply actions