"Are you on the list of 104 players?"
How do you answer that if you are?
I could have sworn I heard Posada and Jeter say "I hope not." What do you mean you hope not?
Printable View
"Are you on the list of 104 players?"
How do you answer that if you are?
I could have sworn I heard Posada and Jeter say "I hope not." What do you mean you hope not?
Link? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Huh?
Interview on MLB network...Okay I need an answer to a question here:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
When a player failed/fails a drug test..HIS TEAM is notified as well as the player...right? I mean how can Tom Hicks say he's 'shocked and betrayed' when he should know Arod failed a steroids test.
The real no win question is if you were late to work and your boss asks you if you were late.
No, I don't believe the team is notifiedQuote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Or when your girlfriend asks how you knew about her sister's hidden birthmark :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
sorry, back to more steroids talk
The test that A-Rod failed was not like the tests that the game now uses. It was part of a survey test that the MLBPA and MLB agreed upon to assess the problem in the game. The agreement stated that the test would be anonymous and that after the results assessed, the samples would be destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Tom Hicks can't honestly say he's "shocked and betrayed" when he employed Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, etc. It's a knee-jerk media-pleasing reaction.
How could Tom Hicks be "betrayed" anyway? He doesn't suffer any negatives from the news, but got to profit from all the money they made him as really good (and really juiced) players.
Yep. He's just upset that he traded away A-Rod and basically got nothing back for him while paying him to play for the Yankees. Maybe if Texas could've put some halfway decent pitching in front of the teams A-Rod was on, they would've won something.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
Surely the players themselves were notified...wern't they?
I thought that was why A-rod was 'tested 9 or so times' in 2004...as Arod himself said once.
No, I don't think so. It was supposed to be an anonymous test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3894847
I don't really know WHAT to believe, except that according to the agreement, nobody was supposed to be notified. Each player was supposed to be tested ANONYMOUSLY and the samples were supposed to be destroyed.Quote:
Rodriguez said he was told by Gene Orza, the chief operating officer of the MLB Players Association, that he might, or might not, have tested positive in the 2003 survey. That conversation happened during the 2004 season. A source told ESPN on Saturday that Rodriguez knew he had failed the test.
According to the Mitchell report, all players who failed the test in 2003 were notified by September 2004.
Rodriguez said he didn't know for sure he had failed a test until Sports Illustrated contacted him last week.
The email I got from Rory at The Bleacher Report:
Just kidding about the P.S. part.Quote:
Hey Justin,
Following Alex Rodriguez’s admission that he used steroids, I’m looking for some folks to speculate about the question that’s on every baseball fan’s mind: Who are the other 103 players that also tested positive for steroids along with A-Rod in 2003?
Feel free to profile one player and argue why his stats and/or physical appearance point toward steroid use, or highlight the Top 10 (or more) players that have yet to be associated with steroid use, but you feel are likely guilty of using performance enhancing drugs.
Or, breakdown the 2 to 20 (if you’re a Bay Area baseball fan) players who’ve suited up for your home team who you most suspect of taking banner substances.
Whatever your approach, be sure to provide analysis for whichever players you profile.
If you're able, please submit a 300-800 word editorial article, or a slideshow article, by this Thursday.
Let me know if you have any questions, or if you want to bounce any ideas around, and remember to publish your analysis directly to Bleacher Report. Shoot me a link once your article is posted so I can check it out.
Thanks,
Rory
P.S. Don't send this to that Tripaldi guy (RedsoxRockies). His articles are horrendous!
I remember hearing something about the samples being preserved, so in the event a previously-undetectable substance was uncovered, they could go back and check for it "retroactively".Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Does that sound familiar, or am I crazy?
I'm pretty sure they do that with tests NOW. With the test that A-Rod failed, according to the agreement, the samples were supposed to be destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetMedic
I cant help it. lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZPVw-Vl1ow
I think you may be at least partly right, here, Pavel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Doesn't the CBA (assuming that's where the testing language actually lives) stipulate two tests, per player, per year? And, I think, 600 players randomly chosen for a third test?
One would imagine if A-Rod was, in fact, "tested 9 or so times" in one year, he would have at least been suspicious that they were nosing around because they caught a whiff of something banned.
I'm very much reminded of the owner in North Dallas Forty:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
"We paid you! We paid you damn well!...you've betrayed me, you've betrayed my brother. You've hurt yourself and you've hurt the game"
He also later said he was jokingly exaggerating when he said nine times in a year, and he was obviously not tested that often. It doesn't happen, and never has.Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetMedic
Weren't the samples destroyed? I haven't heard either way specifically on that. What was seized by the feds in the BALCO raid (the basis of this report) was a record of the results, not the actual samples as far as I've read.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The only way that the Bonds sample could have been retested is if the samples weren't destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayC
What I've gathered from reading multiple sources, is that this was the "plan" for anonymity. Each sample would contain a code on it. Held in a separate state was a master list that matched up codes with player names. The Feds confiscated both as part of the BALCO investigation, but only had a warrant to look at the info of the BALCO players (which, they obviously did not follow).
It's really foggy, but we know for a fact that the test was not conducted in the manner it was agreed upon. If it was, we would not be having this conversation.
But the Bonds sample is different; that's not information taken from this "list of 104 players."Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Just saw this: "The union moved in April to quash the subpoena, and federal investigators obtained a search warrant and seized records from Comprehensive Drug Testing and samples from Quest Diagnostics.
Although the search warrant sought records of 10 players, the government found a spreadsheet with a list of 104 players who had tested positive; it then obtained additional search warrants and seized all records."
So the data on the 104 who failed the test comes from a spreadsheet, not from samples.
A lot of other detail here on what happened, including why the records weren't destroyed:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...=ESPNHeadlines
The sample that was retested was the sample Bonds gave for the anonymous survey test. He passed that test, and the sample was later retested as part of his investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayC
Here we go: "The federal agents who raided Quest Diagnostics in Las Vegas, armed with the code numbers obtained at Comprehensive Drug Testing, seized the matching urine samples for the 10 players. A month later, agents went back and took the urine samples for all the players who tested positive in 2003."
Bonds, of course, would have been among that first ten (that refers to the ten players who testified before the grand jury investigating Balco). But they do apparently have the samples to match up to the 104 names. That list and the actual samples were stored at two different facilities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/sp...tml?ref=sports
Yep. Storing the names and coded samples separately was their method of "anonymity." :rolleyes:
Its almost enough to make you think the league and/or players union held this information intentionally, to be used later.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The union, not the league, had control of the information. Their explanation was in an article I linked to earlier. According to Donald Fehr, they received the results on November 11, "finalized" them (whatever that means) on the 13th, and notified players of the results on Novermber 14. Then they began the "first steps" of the "process of destruction of the testing materials and records." But on November 19 they learned the records were subject to subpoena, so it would be illegal to destroy them. So... they didn't do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...=ESPNHeadlines
1. Well that answers part of original question, 'were the players notified'. And again how in the world can Posada answer "I hope not"?Quote:
Originally Posted by JayC
2. Arn't ALL non-national security records subject to subpeona? Does that mean it's illegal to destroy my grocery list?
And it still begs the question as to why the anonymous test wasn't anonymous.
I don't believe any of the players or teams knew what players failed the tests in question about A-Rod. It was used for numbers sake only....or so I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Ok...so 'notified the players of the results' was just a % figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
never saw that. from what I had heard of everything from theses reports, and SI's whole thing appeared to me, that none of the players or owners knew about who failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Poor choice of words on my part. The quote from the article I linked to was: "we learned that the government had issued a subpoena."Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Poor choice of words on his part, probably stemming out of never being in any controversies and not having learned how specific you have to be when asked that kind of question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
He later called the reporter back and clarified: ""I have never done it. Let me make myself clear: I will never be positive. I don't take anything. I've never tested positive in anything and I never will."
Yeah, I believe that's the case. From what I've read the players were notified in "a memo" from the MLBPA. That implies that they all MLB players got the same memo, which probably just said what the results of the "survey test" were (what percentage of the results were positive) and how that affected upcoming testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1