MLB: Possible 2003 PED Positive Tests?

[CYdTracked]

Who knows how accurate this really is but this is the potential list of the players who tested positive for PED’s in 2003. Sadly there are a lot of guys who are current or former Cubs on that list, the ones in bold were on the Cubs in ’03 everyone else was a Cub at some point in their career.

http://www.rotoinfo.com/read_article.php?articleId=318

1.Nomar Garciaparra
12.Jerry Hairston
14.Alfonso Soriano
29.Milton Bradley
59.Derrek Lee
70.Jeromy Burnitz
71.Moises Alou
72.Sammy Sosa
73.Corey Patterson
74.Carlos Zambrano
75.Mark Prior
76.Kerry Wood
77.Matt Clement
78.Antonio Alfonseca
79.Juan Cruz
80.Aramis Ramirez
100.Luis Gonzalez
103.Gary Matthews

 

[gocubs2118]

I'm not putting any stock into that "list". Not enough little names and way too many huge names. Plus, I didn't know there are two Jeromy Burnitz in the league.

 

[CloneIce]

Where did this list come from?

Jeromy Burnitz? That surprises me cause I remember when he was on the Mets (hitting .215) and everyone said he was the cleanest man in baseball, since he wouldn't even use creatine, protein or any other supplements. I always thougth he must have hated everybody juicing. Surprised to see his name on the list.

 

[CrossCyed]

This came up during Sox/Cubs and we doubted its validity due to a real lack of marginal players - guys more likely to be using the stuff to prolong careers.

 

[hurdleisu24]

Not really caring or believing that list.

 

[acrozier22]

This list is crap. There is no way not one cardinal shows up on this list after the McGuire years.

 

[RayShimley]

I hope the actual list does come out, but as some other people have pointed out, the superstar/average joe ratio on this list seems suspect. Nothing would surprise me at this point though.

 

[CloneIce]

Juan Cruz? Seriously?

 

[AIT]

None of those names would surprise me but, there's ten guys from the '03 Cubs out of 103 positives. I have a hard time believing that a tenth of the list would come from one team if steroids were really that widespread, but who knows.

 

[CyCrazy]

ya i dont buy that list either, 10 cubs really??? but i would love to see the real list, and if Pujols is on that list I would prob shed many tears

 

[RayShimley]

Pretty much debunked on DeadSpin

http://deadspin.com/5304675/why-the-new-alleged-steroids-list-is-a-crock?skyline=true&s=x

 

[ZCyclone]

I hope the actual list does come out, but as some other people have pointed out, the superstar/average joe ratio on this list seems suspect. Nothing would surprise me at this point though.

So you hope something that players signed up to do as confidential gets completely blown out in the open?

 

[CyDude16]

List definitely seems suspect....


Antonio Alfonseca... :biglaugh::biglaugh:

 

[Mr Janny]

This came up during Sox/Cubs and we doubted its validity due to a real lack of marginal players - guys more likely to be using the stuff to prolong careers.

Exactly. Where are the scrub players? Seems fishy.

 

[CyCrazy]

So you hope something that players signed up to do as confidential gets completely blown out in the open?

in a word yes. its not like the players union hasn't f'd this up allready

 

[RayShimley]

So you hope something that players signed up to do as confidential gets completely blown out in the open?

Yes, as opposed to players names getting leaked one at a time as it benefits the media and the Government's vendetta against steroids. It's obviously no longer a matter of if, but when.

 

[AIT]

Yes, as opposed to players names getting leaked one at a time as it benefits the media and the Government's vendetta against steroids. It's obviously no longer a matter of if, but when.

QFT. The names are already coming out, might as well get them all out now.

 

[Mr Janny]

I could be wrong, but as I understand it, it's the union's fault that there is even a list of names. As I heard it, the 2003 tests were proposed initially as anonymous, however the union was concerned that some of the tests would yield falsely positive results. This meant that names had to be attached to each test so each could be examined on a case by case basis. Indeed, some positive tests were thrown out, but now 6 years later it is coming back to bite.

 

[RayShimley]

I could be wrong, but as I understand it, it's the union's fault that there is even a list of names. As I heard it, the 2003 tests were proposed initially as anonymous, however the union was concerned that some of the tests would yield falsely positive results. This meant that names had to be attached to each test so each could be examined on a case by case basis. Indeed, some positive tests were thrown out, but now 6 years later it is coming back to bite.

I'm not sure of the exact circumstances (what you said would make sense), but yes it was the union's responsibility to destroy the names. Unfortunately, they drug their feet and when the Government got word of the list they subpoenaed it.

 

[egami]

Hm, I'd be interested in the source that states it is the union's fault. Seems like I remember hearing that the union wasn't for names being recorded originally anyway and that when the list was obtained it was from MLB and they hadn't given over to the union yet. Been too long though...