|Connelly’s Top Ten: David OverPriced, Sunday Bird, Complete Games (Or Not)||Two Red Sox Players Considered Serious MVP Candidates||Connelly’s Top Ten: Holt Magic, Brady is Awesome, Exorcist Wicked Scary||Sox Take Two From SF Giants|
David Ortiz spoke to the media in a press conference Saturday at Yankee Stadium, and he revealed he still did not know what he tested positive for (if anything) in 2003. He admitted he was “careless” with the supplements he purchased over the counter, but denied ever purchasing steroids.
“I’m not here to make excuses or anything,” Ortiz said Saturday during a news conference at Yankee Stadium. “I want to apologize to the fans for the distraction, my teammates, my manager. We go into a situation now, it was a nightmare to me.
“I’m one of the guys, I think about the fans, it wouldn’t be as good as it is without the fans. People look at me as a guy who hit the ball, but I try to do things the right way.”
After the alleged positive test in 2003, Ortiz acknowledged he met with the MLB Player’s Association in 2004 and was told he was on a list seized by the federal government, but was never told he tested positive for anything, especially steroids, which is why he said he was “surprised” when he was tied to the infamous list last Thursday.
In a statement released Saturday morning about the 2003 list, the MLBPA called the list into question. MLBPA representative Michael Weiner detailed how the 104 names broke down during the conference. Apparently, there were 83 positive test results (not necessarily by 83 players, as some were tested more than once), 13 results deemed “inconclusive,” and eight more that tested positive for dietary supplements and other non-steroid products.
David Ortiz releases his initial statement to begin the news conference.
Reaction: I’m not so sure what to think about Ortiz. I really want to believe he never took steroids, but I’m also not naive. One day when the entire list (and its details are released) we may know more about Ortiz and other potential performance-enhancing drug users. Either way, the release of the 2003 list will got a long way (but not all the way) in ending the steroids controversy. That’s the first step. The second part of the healing process is the lapse of time. In 10 years, will we still be talking about Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds and their alleged steroid use, or will we be watching him go into Cooperstown? Or both?