The shock of the century in sports! David Ortiz tested positive for PEDs in 2003!

[il Padrino Ute]

It burns like fire.

If it burns like fire, Jose should see a doctor.

[fusnik]

Can Big Papi sue MLB, reporters, lawyers, whoever is disclosing this 'confidential' information?

You would think these gentlemen, A-Rod, Big Papi, etc, stand to lose millions of dollars in endorsement deals because of the recent information.

[cougjunkie]

I love Bronson Arroyo covering his tracks just in case:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4368436

[Indy Coug]

I'm glad we're keeping religious track of all the steroid users in the NFL.

[smokymountainrain]

Two possibly really stupid questions...Bare with me as I've tried to ignore the steroid stuff for the most part.

1) Why, if these guys tested positive in 2003, are we just hearing about it now?

2) Why, if these guys tested positive in 2003, didn't they get suspended immediately, if ever?

Did baseball simply turn a blind eye?

[Indy Coug]

Two possibly really stupid questions...Bare with me as I've tried to ignore the steroid stuff for the most part.

1) Why, if these guys tested positive in 2003, are we just hearing about it now?

2) Why, if these guys tested positive in 2003, didn't they get suspended immediately, if ever?

Did baseball simply turn a blind eye?

This was part of a deal where players would submit themselves to drug testing so MLB could get a feel for how big of a problem substance abuse was with the understanding that the results would remain confidential and not result in any suspensions. This was prior to MLB implementing their current drug policy. Of course, the results have been far from confidential.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Two possibly really stupid questions...Bare with me as I've tried to ignore the steroid stuff for the most part.

1) Why, if these guys tested positive in 2003, are we just hearing about it now?

2) Why, if these guys tested positive in 2003, didn't they get suspended immediately, if ever?

Did baseball simply turn a blind eye?

The 2003 testing was a "survey" testing that was supposed to be anonymous. The purpose of that testing was if >5% tested positive, they would then implement a steroid testing program. Prior to 2004 there was not a testing program for steroids or any punishment for their use.

The reason you are hearing about it now, is that someone didn't destroy the positives list as was supposed to happen, the feds snatched it up in the BALCO investigation, and names are slowly being leaked off of the list.

[Indy Coug]

Honestly, who really cares who tested positive 6 years ago? Let me know when someone tests positive now.

[MartyFunkhouser]

oh, they all take steroids.

but baseball has made a big deal about "steps" to eradicate steroids, when in reality, I am not sure anything has been done.

I am also not sure that what Pete Rose did is worse, if at all. How would you support that claim? The reason I ask is because steroids has permeated every aspect of the game....pitchers, hitters, all-time records, inflated player salaries, etc.

If Pete Rose only bet on his team to win, what the impact on the game as a whole?

Here is what we know about Pete Rose. He is a liar and lied for several years. He lied to the commissioner of baseball only to be proven wrong shortly after. He bet on baseball. His claim is that he didn't bet against his own team. I guess we will have to accept the claim of a known liar that he didn't bet against his team. Also, we don't know if he bet on other teams. He was a manager and he had the opportunity to influence the game. The impact on the game as a whole is questioning the integrity more than steroids ever could question the integrity. At least with steroids you know that no one could possibly be throwing the game to win a bet.

We have never seen the evidence that MLB has against Pete Rose. The evidence that MLB has against him caused him to agree to a lifetime ban from the sport. It certainly seems that whatever evidence they have must be particularly damning for him to take that deal.

Pete Rose is scum and while there is scum already in the baseball HOF, he shouldn't be allowed in. It is also his own fault that he isn't in the HOF. There are plenty of rumors that MLB has offered him a deal that he could be in the HOF but not otherwise involved in baseball, but he has turned those down.

[smokymountainrain]

This was part of a deal where players would submit themselves to drug testing so MLB could get a feel for how big of a problem substance abuse was with the understanding that the results would remain confidential and not result in any suspensions. This was prior to MLB implementing their current drug policy. Of course, the results have been far from confidential.

I had no idea. Thanks

[falafel]

His forehead is cro-magnonesque

Well used.

[falafel]

Here is what we know about Pete Rose. He is a liar and lied for several years. He lied to the commissioner of baseball only to be proven wrong shortly after. He bet on baseball. His claim is that he didn't bet against his own team. I guess we will have to accept the claim of a known liar that he didn't bet against his team. Also, we don't know if he bet on other teams. He was a manager and he had the opportunity to influence the game. The impact on the game as a whole is questioning the integrity more than steroids ever could question the integrity. At least with steroids you know that no one could possibly be throwing the game to win a bet.

We have never seen the evidence that MLB has against Pete Rose. The evidence that MLB has against him caused him to agree to a lifetime ban from the sport. It certainly seems that whatever evidence they have must be particularly damning for him to take that deal.

Pete Rose is scum and while there is scum already in the baseball HOF, he shouldn't be allowed in. It is also his own fault that he isn't in the HOF. There are plenty of rumors that MLB has offered him a deal that he could be in the HOF but not otherwise involved in baseball, but he has turned those down.

You've built quite a case against Pete Rose based on MLB's supposed file on him. However, no matter what you say, you can't deny that he is one of the greatest to ever play the game. He will not be kept out forever. Even now MLB is softening towards Rose. He'll be in before he's dead.

[TripletDaddy]

I don't disagree that he is a liar, but I have no idea whether Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth were liars, so I am not sure that is determinative. Personal loser traits can't be the lynchpin. There are a load of losers in the HOF, likely.

My question was if there were any tangible examples of how Pete's betting impacted or permeated into the game. You refer to the "integrity" of the game, which has merit.....but has there even been a big uproar about baseball being fixed? I gave several examples of how steroids have impacted the game.......steroids helped players break records that have stood for years, many of which are part of Americana.....steroids inflated player stats, thereby inflating player salaries, thereby affecting rosters all over the league, let alone free-agency. Juicers that were payed more than they should have were taking up more space on the payroll, thereby preventing other players from getting more......and I definitely have heard and read hundreds of comments, articles, reports, etc calling into question the integrity of the game as a result of steroids. Steroids are so rampant that the term "The Steroid Era" is commonplace in baseball. The question now is whether steroids were a problem across the board, the debate is whether players entering the HOF should be denoted with a "Steroid Era" tag.

I have never heard any references to "The Gambling Era," or calls to denote gamblers in the HOF. I am unaware of any impact on player salaries or a single major league record as a result of Pete Rose betting on his team or lying to Giamatti about it afterwards. I have never heard of any asterisks or questions as to the legitmacy of baseball as a result of Pete's betting. I am not sure how old you were in 1987, but if you recall, there was an uproar about whether games were fixed. Once Pete was banned, the uproar went away. By 88, it was a dead issue and the only thing that anyone remembers from that season was Kirk Gibson beating the A's in Game 1.

Congress has become involved with the steroid issue. Players have been summoned under oath to testify before grand juries about steroids. In contrast, Giamatti had his own lawyer go out and write the Dowd report. Congress was never close to becoming involved in the Pete Rose issue. And while the Dowd report uncovered evidence of 50 or so games, juiced players have played in thousands of games. It is interesting that the judiciary became involved in the Black Sox scandal but didn't even sniff when Pete Rose allegations surfaced. Why is that? Probably because the Black Sox scandal involved game fixing, while Rose simply bet on his own team.

Is there anything specific that can help clarify this because thus far, I'm not buying that Pete Rose's actions are on par with the steroid issue, let alone worse than the steroid issue. I think I have given at least a few cogent examples. All the ones you cite (integrity of the game is really the only thing I gather) apply to the steroid era just as much to gambling. However, the ones I cite have no bearing on Pete Rose betting on his own team as a manager.

[MartyFunkhouser]

It is well acknowledged that the one rule you never break in baseball is don't bet on the game. Rose knew of the rule and broke it. Yes steroids are a bigger problem than what Pete Rose did because it was on a large scale not on an individual player/manager basis.

The big question is does your attitude change if you find out that Pete Rose bet against the Reds? While Dowd stated that there is no proof that he bet against the Reds, he believes that he did bet against them. Rose has tried to mitigate his own wrongdoing by claiming that he bet on every game the Reds played, so it didn't affect the team. Dowd indicated that he did not bet on games where his 4-5 starters were pitching. You have a serious question as to how his actions affected the team. Did he overuse his bullpen in the games he bet on to ensure the victories in games he bet on, making it more likely that they lost the games with his 4-5 pitchers. The only way that he didn't have a serious impact on the game was if he bet on the Reds to win every game he managed.

Here we have an investigator who says he wasn't able to prove it but thinks that Rose bet against the Red's and doesn't believe that he bet on every game. His word is against Rose who lied for years, only to come clean as part of a publicity tour for his book. I more inclined to lean towards Dowd.

If I was MLB I would offer him a deal that if he agrees that he will never be allowed to be involved in the game without any opportunity for reinstatement, he would be allowed on the HOF ballot. He would never take the deal and never be in the HOF. Hopefully if he did take the deal the BBWAA would do the right thing and never vote him in.

[TripletDaddy]

It is well acknowledged that the one rule you never break in baseball is don't bet on the game. Rose knew of the rule and broke it. Yes steroids are a bigger problem than what Pete Rose did because it was on a large scale not on an individual player/manager basis.

The big question is does your attitude change if you find out that Pete Rose bet against the Reds? While Dowd stated that there is no proof that he bet against the Reds, he believes that he did bet against them. Rose has tried to mitigate his own wrongdoing by claiming that he bet on every game the Reds played, so it didn't affect the team. Dowd indicated that he did not bet on games where his 4-5 starters were pitching. You have a serious question as to how his actions affected the team. Did he overuse his bullpen in the games he bet on to ensure the victories in games he bet on, making it more likely that they lost the games with his 4-5 pitchers. The only way that he didn't have a serious impact on the game was if he bet on the Reds to win every game he managed.

Here we have an investigator who says he wasn't able to prove it but thinks that Rose bet against the Red's and doesn't believe that he bet on every game. His word is against Rose who lied for years, only to come clean as part of a publicity tour for his book. I more inclined to lean towards Dowd.

If I was MLB I would offer him a deal that if he agrees that he will never be allowed to be involved in the game without any opportunity for reinstatement, he would be allowed on the HOF ballot. He would never take the deal and never be in the HOF. Hopefully if he did take the deal the BBWAA would do the right thing and never vote him in.

ok, i see your point. this seems much more tempered.

A few thoughts...

1. I think that at this stage of his life, he would take that deal. He is in his late 60s, no? I think the chances of him managing, regardless of the ban, are shrinking faster than David Ortiz's testicles (rimshot!). There isn't much for him to do now, other than maybe be a consultant or an Ambassador of some sort. He is on his baseball deathbed, so his only shot is the HOF.

2. If Pete bet against the Reds, then I think a lot of questions get answered pretty quickly. It would be inevitable that he managed with the intent to throw games....which, as you state, would be anathema to the integrity of the game. However, a practical question.....how much can a manager hell bent on throwing a game actually affect each individual game? The Black Sox scandal required ALL the players to be in on the fix, not the manager. I think it would actually be quite difficult to intentionally manage your way out of 50 or so games without the players, assistant coaches, media, ownership, etc wanting to know what the heck was going on.

My guess is that Pete will wind up in the HOF. Regardless of his actions as a manager, banning him as a player makes little sense. Esp in light of the record he holds as a player.