Did David Ortiz admit to more than he realized with his Players’ Tribune editorial?

88 Comments

Here’s something fun to think about: David Ortiz Players’ Tribune editorial in which he said that “nobody in MLB history has been tested for PEDs more than me” may be an admission of more than Ortiz realizes.

Under the Joint Drug Agreement, all players are, at the outset anyway, tested twice a year. According to Section 3(A) of the JDA, your urine is tested (a) once in spring training; and (b) once randomly during the regular season.

In addition to those mandatory drug tests for all players, there are additional random ones set forth in section 3(A)(2). Specifically, (a) 3,200 urine specimen collections of randomly-selected players at unannounced times in-season; and (b) 350 urine specimen collections at unannounced times during each off-season.

So, what that means is 2-3 and, if you’re unlucky, four drug tests a year. Plus the new HGH blood tests, which happen once a year for all players, in spring training.

Unless, that is, you have tested positive for something in the past. In that case, section 3(D) comes into play, and that involves up to six additional unannounced urine tests during the season and three additional blood tests:

A Player who is disciplined under Sections 7.A, 7.B, 7.C, 7.E, 7.F or 7.G, or has otherwise violated the Program through the use or possession of a Performance Enhancing Substance, Stimulant or DHEA, shall be subject to the following mandatory follow-up testing program, administered by the IPA . . .

People inside the game refer to those players who have the stepped-up, post-discipline testing as being “in the program.” Just yesterday the Daily News referred to this in the case of Alex Rodriguez, who is now subject to stepped-up testing.

So let’s go back to David Ortiz. He claims he’s been tested 80 times in the decade or so there has been drug testing. That’s an awful lot of testing, especially when you consider that the blood testing just started last year. And that, until last year, the number of in-season random tests was less than half of what it is now. Given that a player not “in the program” gets, at most, four tests a year and more likely 2-3 (less before last year), what possible basis could there be for Ortiz to be tested as often as he claims he has been other than a previous positive test?

“But wait!” I hear you claiming, “He’s all but admitted that he is on the list of players who tested positive in the 2003 survey testing, so this isn’t news.” True, but no players were put in “the program” as a result of the 2003 survey tests. Indeed, the very existence of the 2003 survey testing was premised on their being no discipline for anyone at all. That’s why it was called survey testing. And, at any rate, the rules for stepped-up testing weren’t even written yet by then. No, to be “in the program,” Ortiz would have had to have another positive drug test, after the survey testing began.

“But wait!” I hear you saying, “Ortiz has never been suspended!” Also true. He has not been. But, until very recently, players were not suspended for first offenses for amphetamines. They were put into mandatory drug counseling, not suspended. And their names were not released to the public. They were, however, subjected to “the program” and its stepped-up testing. It says so right there in Section 3(D).

So, we’re left with two explanations. Either Ortiz is grossly exaggerating how often he has been tested — possibly by a factor three or four — or Ortiz is telling the truth, he has been tested as often as he claims and the reason for it is that he is or has been “in the program” for previous drug offenders and we just didn’t know about it.

If neither of those is the case there is a third possibility, I guess: that Ortiz is being singled out by MLB for multiple times more testing than anyone else. If so, he should call his union rep immediately and file a grievance rather than spending his time writing editorials about how ho-hum all of this stepped-up drug testing he has been subjected to really is. Really: if he’s not lying about how often he’s tested and he hasn’t had a previous positive test for amphetamines, then Major League Baseball has singled him out for significantly more testing than anyone else and he doesn’t seem to mind too much.

Now go back and read Ortiz’s editorial — and go back to other instances in which Ortiz has felt that he was treated unfairly — and ask yourself if he’s a guy who doesn’t seem to mind too much about anything.

New bill to build Athletics stadium on Las Vegas Strip caps Nevada’s cost at $380 million

D. Ross Cameron-USA TODAY Sports
1 Comment

CARSON CITY, Nev. — A bill introduced in the Nevada Legislature would give the Oakland Athletics up to $380 million for a potential 30,000 seat, $1.5 billion retractable roof stadium on the Las Vegas Strip.

The bulk of the public funding would come from $180 million in transferable tax credits from the state and $120 million in county bonds, which can vary based on interest rate returns. Clark County also would contribute $25 million in credit toward infrastructure costs.

The A’s have been looking for a home to replace Oakland Coliseum, where the team has played since arriving from Kansas City for the 1968 season. The team had sought to build a stadium in Fremont, San Jose and finally the Oakland waterfront, all ideas that never materialized.

The plan in the Nevada Legislature won’t directly raise taxes. It can move forward with a simply majority vote in the Senate and Assembly. Lawmakers have a little more than a week to consider the proposal before they adjourn June 5, though it could be voted on if a special session is called.

The Athletics have agreed to use land on the southern end of the Las Vegas Strip, where the Tropicana Las Vegas casino resort sits. Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao has said he is disappointed the team didn’t negotiate with Oakland as a “true partner.”

Las Vegas would be the fourth home for a franchise that started as the Philadelphia Athletics from 1901-54. It would become the smallest TV market in Major League Baseball and the smallest market to be home to three major professional sports franchises.

The team and Las Vegas are hoping to draw from the nearly 40 million tourists who visit the city annually to help fill the stadium. The 30,000-seat capacity would make it the smallest MLB stadium.

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said a vote on the Oakland Athletics’ prospective move to Las Vegas could take place when owners meet June 13-15 in New York.

The plan faces an uncertain path in the Nevada Legislature. Democratic leaders said financing bills, including for the A’s, may not go through if Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoes the five budget bills, which he has threatened to do as many of his priorities have stalled or faded in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Under the bill, the Clark County Board of Commissioners would create a homelessness prevention and assistance fund along the stadium’s area in coordination with MLB and the Nevada Resort Association. There, they would manage funds for services, including emergency rental and utility assistance, job training, rehabilitation and counseling services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

The lease agreement with the Las Vegas Stadium Authority would be up for renewal after 30 years.

Nevada’s legislative leadership is reviewing the proposal, Democratic state Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager said in a statement.

“No commitment will be made until we have both evaluated the official proposal and received input from interested parties, including impacted community members,” Yeager said.