a combination of then-legal supplements and vitamins likely caused a positive test.
it wasn't steroids.
Get your facts straight.
but Good Try!
 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
-
10-31-13 09:40 PM #71
Last edited by hockey216; 10-31-13 at 09:44 PM.
-
10-31-13 09:43 PM #72
look up MLB's statement, or even the summary of it on wikipedia.
["On the same day, the Major League Baseball Players Association issued a statement[16] pointing out that because of several factors, any player appearing on the list compiled by the federal government in 2003 did not necessarily test positive for performance enhancing drugs. Among those factors were that the total number of players said to be on the list far exceeded the number of collected specimens that tested positive. In addition, there were questions raised regarding the lab that performed the testing and their interpretation of the positive tests. Also, the statement pointed out that certain legal supplements that were available over the counter at the time could possibly cause a positive test result.]
-
10-31-13 09:47 PM #73
-
11-01-13 06:47 AM #74
He is automatic hall guy now
3 world series
Boston legend
-
11-01-13 07:59 AM #75
Could possibly cause. Not likely. The number one reason for failing a steriods test is steroids, not some possible supplement cocktail. Thanks for posting the proof. Juicer.
-
11-01-13 08:00 AM #76
Also that's mlb PA! not mlb. Even better! Guy is a juicer for sure.
-
11-01-13 08:01 AM #77
let them juice
i don't see the problem here
-
11-01-13 08:03 AM #78
Originally Posted by manny24
-
11-01-13 08:03 AM #79
Agree. But the current hof criteria implicitly excludes juicers.
-
11-01-13 10:37 AM #80
sooner or later some of these iffy guys get in.
I don't think they even care about the HOF, I would want my 100 million + contract long before any stupid ring or enshrinement in the HOF.
The rings and HOF are way down the list after the fat contract.
-
11-01-13 10:46 AM #81
Its fairly clear he's juicing now.
Guy couldn't turn on an 89 mph fastball back in '09. Now at almost 38 years of age he's hammering 98 mph fastballs?
Please. Let's be real for a minute.SBR
Poster of
Year 2011
-
11-01-13 12:12 PM #82
the older the berry
the sweeter the juice
-
11-01-13 12:16 PM #83
Ortiz will be in the HOF right after Tebow starts for his next NFL team.
-
11-01-13 12:54 PM #84
FACT: IF A PLAYER HAS EVER HAD HIS NAME ASSOICATED WITH PERFORMANCE ENHANCMENT DRUGS, THEY WILL NOT MAKE THE BASEBALL HALL OF FAME
ORTIZ WAS MENTIONED WITH PED'S = NO HOF
-
11-01-13 12:55 PM #85
The juicers have RUINED such a great sport. Such a disappointment.
-
11-01-13 07:07 PM #86
WRONG! Originally Posted by will2survive
FACT: IF A PLAYER HAS EVER HAD HIS NAME ASSOICATED WITH PERFORMANCE ENHANCMENT DRUGS, THEY WILL NOT MAKE THE BASEBALL HALL OF FAME
ORTIZ WAS MENTIONED WITH PED'S = NO HOF
What does "name being associated with" mean? You actually have to have PROOF that someone is cheating. Is Manny Pacquiao not going to make it into boxing HOF because "his name was associated with PED's" even though he never failed a test?
Every player could have "name associated with PED's" if I stand on sidewalk and associate them with PED's. That is not proof.
You need PROOF before you bar people from hall of fame. There is no proof that Ortiz was on steroids.
a combination of then-legal supplements and vitamins likely caused a positive test.
it wasn't steroids.
Get your facts straight.
look up MLB's statement, or even the summary of it on wikipedia.
["On the same day, the Major League Baseball Players Association issued a statement[16] pointing out that because of several factors, any player appearing on the list compiled by the federal government in 2003 did not necessarily test positive for performance enhancing drugs. Among those factors were that the total number of players said to be on the list far exceeded the number of collected specimens that tested positive. In addition, there were questions raised regarding the lab that performed the testing and their interpretation of the positive tests. Also, the statement pointed out that certain legal supplements that were available over the counter at the time could possibly cause a positive test result.]
Get your facts straight.
but Good Try!
Reply With Quote
