David Ortiz addressed the media and his fans on Saturday, speaking quietly and contritely at Yankee Stadium in New York in an attempt to explain how he was linked to "The List" of players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs back in 2003 with former teammate Manny Ramirez.
Big Papi sounded convincing when he said he never bought or used steroids. He sounded slightly less so in claiming he was "a little careless" with vitamins and other supplements he took back then.
Now, a disclaimer. As a Red Sox fan, I'm as guilty as the next guy for trying to see Ortiz in the most positive light possible. Along with Sox fans everywhere, I'm hoping he's somehow exonerated in this. I firmly believe that Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, A-Rod and many of the others are guilty as sin, but I'm hoping Papi's the exception to the "where there's smoke there's fire" steroid rule. I don't expect complete absolution, but in my heart of hearts, I want that to be the case.
But even putting my objective hat back on, I still feel like very little definitive information came out of Papi's news conference in New York Saturday. And I feel very safe in saying that the comments of Ortiz and union attorney Michael Weiner raised more questions than they answered.
First, the number of players on The List is now in question. Are there 104 names on it? Or were there 104 positive tests on which a single player could have been counted twice? Wait, but Major League Baseball said in a statement Saturday that 96 urine samples, at most, tested positive in the 2003 survey. Hang on, and the players association said that 13 of those were disputed findings. So where did the 104 come from?
In other words, as the Red Sox said in a statement, "The Players Association made clear … that there are substantial uncertainties and ambiguity surrounding the list of 104 names from the 2003 survey test. Indeed, there is even uncertainty about the number of players on this 2003 government list, whether it is 104, 96, 83, or less."
"We specifically told the players we don't know how the government compiled that list," Weiner said to the media on Saturday. "We don't know why their names are on that list, and we don't know whether they tested positive for steroids in 2003."
Apparently the exact number positive tests — seemingly 96 according to MLB — has been part of the public record for months. Weiner pointed out that the same things he revealed in responding to questions on Saturday were the same points he made in a recent letter to Congressmen Tom Davis and Henry Waxman and in a separate letter to Sen. George Mitchell, he of the report bearing his name.
"Maybe we made the mistake of thinking people would read the letter we sent to the congressmen because everything we said today is in that letter," he said.
If that's the case, why has no reporter sought the explanation out for why this figure is different from the originally accepted 104?
Second, I understand the need to test for steroids back in 2003: They were trying to determine whether the level of steroid use was high enough to warrant regular testing. But where does Major League Baseball get off testing for substances that were perfectly legal?
It's like an accountant having to undergo a drug test for a job and them turning up a trace of alcohol in your system. Now, alcohol is perfectly legal. Sure, drinking has a bit of a stigma attached to it, but it's not illegal. And it's certainly not what the prospective employer is supposedly testing for. How fair is it that Ortiz is being labelled as a cheat and an illegal drug user — along, potentially, with some other names on The List — for doing something that wasn't illegal?
Obviously Major League Baseball wasn't planning on the information getting released — they have the government raids and information-leaking attorneys to thank for that — but the testing was poorly set up and disastrously carried out. And now the results are inconclusive.
"They were test results that were [supposed to be] used to start a testing program," Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek told NESN's Heidi Watney on Saturday. "And I think the testing program in itself is what needs to be the focus as opposed to what has happened to some of those people [on The List]."
It's a fair point, especially now that it seems that showing up on The List might not even mean you tested positive. And "testing positive" might not even mean that you tested positive for illegal steroids. It appears that the names on the list tested positive for whatever it was that baseball tested for … including then-legal supplements like androstenedione.
Was Papi guilty of using andro back in 2003? He said Saturday that he doesn't know. And whether you believe him or not, it doesn't matter … it was legal.
Could it have been supplements or other vitamins, like Ortiz said, that could have contained banned substances?
It's possible, according to BALCO chemist Patrick Arnold, who created the undetectable steroid THG, better known as "the clear."
Arnold told the New York Daily News that it's conceivable Ortiz took 19-norandrostenedione, a supplement that contained the steroid nandrolone and which could be purchased legally back in 2003.
"Yes, people back then did test positive because of supplements, and occasionally it was for nandrolone, which I think [Ortiz] is alluding to, but not verbatim," Arnold told the New York Daily News yesterday. "If he could say it was nandrolone, I'd say, 'OK, you may have a case.'"
If Ortiz is on the list because he tested positive for something that was legal at the time, it seems to me that he has a legitimate out. But no one knows what Papi tested positive for except for the government agents who are now — presumably — in possession of the testing results. Not the MLB players' association. Not even Papi himself. And we won't know for sure what it was until further information comes out.
"David Ortiz doesn't know anything about his test results," Weiner said Saturday. "He doesn't know whether what he took had any effect on his 2003 result. That's the unfairness. His reputation is called into question. He can't get the information and he can't get the result that would allow him a full explanation."
Weiner tried to sum up Ortiz's innocent until proven guilty defense.
"It is unfair in the extreme," he said, "to draw any connection between whether a player's name is on a list and whether a.) the player tested positive or b.) the player took anything that was either banned or illegal."
As veteran ESPN play-by-play man Jon Miller said Sunday, "It's like saying that a guy got arrested, but not saying what he got arrested for."
Varitek seems to agree, especially in regard to his beloved teammate.
"To sit there and pass judgment in any way, shape or form before you have all the facts … is a tough thing to do," he said on Saturday.
The media have done a comprehensive job of casting everyone linked to steroid use and The List in the same light. In most cases thus far, it's been warranted.
Sure, the so-called "evidence" against Ortiz, our Big Papi, seems flimsier than the evidence against most. And everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Hey, for what it's worth, Papi's been tested at least 17 times since 2003, and, unlike Manny, hasn't flunked a single test.
Papi, too, may be guilty as sin. He could have knowledgably been taking steroids for a while. Maybe he's lying to us all and is precisely the cheater lots of baseball fans now consider him to be.
But we don't know. And we might not for a long time.
And that, to me, is more frustrating than anything.
