Big Papi, Hall of Famer

[Old Red]

You do not know the alleged substance yet you readily condemn someone without proof.

 

Neither do you, and I don’t think it would matter to everyone on here anyway. That is where I differ. Just an opinion.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Old Red

[mvp 78]

Now the name calling. Standard procedure on here, and if my opinion doesn’t bother so much why keep commenting. Either way it doesn’t change my opinion, or anything else.

 

That's rich coming from the POP PEE guy.

[Old Red]

That's rich coming from the POP PEE guy.

 

You honestly believe with roids running rampart through baseball at the time that Ortiz was 100% clean? I don’t think it would matter to you anyway, because Ortiz was such a big part of those championships. Would you defend him so much if he had done that in a Yankee uniform?

[mvp 78]

You honestly believe with roids running rampart through baseball at the time that Ortiz was 100% clean? I don’t think it would matter to you anyway, because Ortiz was such a big part of those championships. Would you defend him so much if he had done that in a Yankee uniform?

 

I give credit to Yankees players when it's due. If they had a like-kind in NY, I'd tip my cap.

 

I'm on record as saying the Rays are just as much of a rival as the Yanks, so I'm no Yankee hating absolutist.

[Old Red]

I give credit to Yankees players when it's due. If they had a like-kind in NY, I'd tip my cap.

 

I'm on record as saying the Rays are just as much of a rival as the Yanks, so I'm no Yankee hating absolutist.

 

You didn’t answer the question about Ortiz being clean. That is the major question.

[illinoisredsox]

You didn’t answer the question about Ortiz being clean. That is the major question.

 

What’s your view on Pedro?

[dgalehouse]

When not talking about closers, clutch and Dombrowski, you present many viewpoints I agree with…

 

I try to form my own opinions on everything , based on my feelings and experiences. I don't follow any particular handbook or party line. I don't expect anyone to agree with all ( or even most) of them. And I am not easily offended nor do I take myself all that seriously.

[Bellhorn04]

You honestly believe with roids running rampart through baseball at the time that Ortiz was 100% clean? I don’t think it would matter to you anyway, because Ortiz was such a big part of those championships. Would you defend him so much if he had done that in a Yankee uniform?

 

As we keep saying, they started testing for real in 2004. Ortiz was tested since then and never failed a test.

 

True or false?

[notin]

You do not know the alleged substance yet you readily condemn someone without proof.

 

The Court of Public Opinion has no jury. Also no relevance…

[Old Red]

What’s your view on Pedro?

 

Concerning what aspect?

[Old Red]

The Court of Public Opinion has no jury. Also no relevance…

 

You aren’t the judge, and jury on that, and neither am I. So what?

[jad]

I think it's time for Old Red to join the IGNORE crowd.

[notin]

You aren’t the judge, and jury on that, and neither am I. So what?

 

 

Oh but in the CPI, we’re all judges, screaming an array of verdicts with or without evidence.

 

For instance, we don’t even know what substances MLB tested for in 2003, let alone whether or t they were legal.

 

Someone mentioned Sammy Sosa testing positive. One thing we do know about Sosa is he was an admitted creatine user. Did they test for creatine then? Was that what he allegedly failed for? If so, probably worth noting creatine has never been banned by MLB and is still legal today…

[Old Red]

Oh but in the CPI, we’re all judges, screaming an array of verdicts with or without evidence.

 

For instance, we don’t even know what substances MLB tested for in 2003, let alone whether or t they were legal.

 

Someone mentioned Sammy Sosa testing positive. One thing we do know about Sosa is he was an admitted creatine user. Did they test for creatine then? Was that what he allegedly failed for? If so, probably worth noting creatine has never been banned by MLB and is still legal today…

 

That’s the point that NO ONE here knows what MLB tested for, and yet everyone has an opinion. Lots of comments have been made on here, but nothing has changed. Opinions haven’t been changed, and that’s the way it will be. I don’t try to change anyones opinion, and no one will change mine like it, or not.

[Bellhorn04]

That’s the point that NO ONE here knows what MLB tested for, and yet everyone has an opinion. Lots of comments have been made on here, but nothing has changed. Opinions haven’t been changed, and that’s the way it will be. I don’t try to change anyones opinion, and no one will change mine like it, or not.

 

They started testing for real in 2004. Ortiz was tested since then and never failed a test.

 

True or false?

[Old Red]

They started testing for real in 2004. Ortiz was tested since then and never failed a test.

 

True or false?

 

That question has already been asked, and answered, and doesn’t change a thing.

[Bellhorn04]

That question has already been asked, and answered, and doesn’t change a thing.

 

Why exactly doesn't it change anything?

[Old Red]

Why exactly doesn't it change anything?

 

Probably, because users in my opinion were way ahead of the testers, so if you are implying that anyone who didn’t test positive means they weren’t doing anything dirty would not mean that to be true to a certainly.Do you know different to a certainly?

[mvp 78]

You didn’t answer the question about Ortiz being clean. That is the major question.

 

Do I know if he's clean? No idea. Maybe? Maybe not? Without him failing a legitimate test or being part of a trial (a la Bonds/Clemens), I couldn't possibly say for sure. I can say he never failed any tests once they were instituted league wide (unlike ARod/Manny/Palmeiro/Colon/Grandal/Cruz/Braun/Tejada/Cano/Montas/Laureano).

[mvp 78]

Oh but in the CPI, we’re all judges, screaming an array of verdicts with or without evidence.

 

For instance, we don’t even know what substances MLB tested for in 2003, let alone whether or t they were legal.

 

Someone mentioned Sammy Sosa testing positive. One thing we do know about Sosa is he was an admitted creatine user. Did they test for creatine then? Was that what he allegedly failed for? If so, probably worth noting creatine has never been banned by MLB and is still legal today…

 

Sosa was suspended for using a corked bat.

[mvp 78]

Probably, because users in my opinion were way ahead of the testers, so if you are implying that anyone who didn’t test positive means they weren’t doing anything dirty would not mean that to be true to a certainly.Do you know different to a certainly?

 

If users are ahead of the testers, you have to assume EVERYONE is doing it. If that's the case, it's hard to rail about Ortiz.

[Old Red]

Do I know if he's clean? No idea. Maybe? Maybe not? Without him failing a legitimate test or being part of a trial (a la Bonds/Clemens), I couldn't possibly say for sure. I can say he never failed any tests once they were instituted league wide (unlike ARod/Manny/Palmeiro/Colon/Grandal/Cruz/Braun/Tejada/Cano/Montas/Laureano).

 

Like I have said nothing has changed, and no opinions have been changed, and I’ll still stick with Shaugnessy on this name calling, or not.

[Old Red]

If users are ahead of the testers, you have to assume EVERYONE is doing it. If that's the case, it's hard to rail about Ortiz.

 

You don’t think the users were ahead of the testers? I agree you have to assume everyone was doing it, and the only reason Ortiz name came up, because of just being voted in to the HOF. Like I said earlier I would rail on any Boston sports icon if I suspected they were juicing up.

[Bellhorn04]

Like I have said nothing has changed, and no opinions have been changed, and I’ll still stick with Shaugnessy on this name calling, or not.

 

You're quite a name caller yourself, if you didn't notice.

[moonslav59]

You're quite a name caller yourself, if you didn't notice.

 

Is calling someone a "name-caller" name-calling?

 

Is calling someone by their given name, "name-calling," as well?

[mvp 78]

You don’t think the users were ahead of the testers? I agree you have to assume everyone was doing it, and the only reason Ortiz name came up, because of just being voted in to the HOF. Like I said earlier I would rail on any Boston sports icon if I suspected they were juicing up.

 

If users were indeed ahead of testers, why did highly paid guys like Palmeiro, Cruz, Braun, Manny, et al get caught? Shouldn't they have had the ability to fly under the radar?

[Bellhorn04]

If users were indeed ahead of testers, why did highly paid guys like Palmeiro, Cruz, Braun, Manny, et al get caught? Shouldn't they have had the ability to fly under the radar?

 

Cut it out with those logical arguments.

[Old Red]

You're quite a name caller yourself, if you didn't notice.

 

Of people on here, or are you sticking up for POP PEE. I don’t call someone names for having a different opinion.

[Old Red]

Is calling someone a "name-caller" name-calling?

 

Is calling someone by their given name, "name-calling," as well?

 

That’s a head scratcher.

[Old Red]

If users were indeed ahead of testers, why did highly paid guys like Palmeiro, Cruz, Braun, Manny, et al get caught? Shouldn't they have had the ability to fly under the radar?

 

Try as long, and as hard as you want, but my opinion is not going to change much to the dismay of many on here.