Anyone Watching the David Ortiz Statement and Press Conference?

[tech fan]

Boy I sure hope some of you guys don't bet with the same ILLOGIC/shooting from the hip you do when you make wild unfounded accusations like this one.
If I have time later, I may try to go back to the post re:Arod and see what I said in comparison to what some of you other guys said.[/QUOTE]


dont you have a thread about if ascore is 7-3 on 7/3/09 the play tomorrow sould be rotation #739

just giving you hell

[savage1]

Boy I sure hope some of you guys don't bet with the same ILLOGIC/shooting from the hip you do when you make wild unfounded accusations like this one.
If I have time later, I may try to go back to the post re:Arod and see what I said in comparison to what some of you other guys said.

dont you have a thread about if ascore is 7-3 on 7/3/09 the play tomorrow sould be rotation #739

just giving you hell [/QUOTE]

Lol-True, but that has a proven winning record up to now at least.
Perhaps in the next thread I start I may somehow try to relate numbers to steroids and figure out whether Ortiz is telling the truth or not-better yet,maybe I should ask a Ouija Board or consult someone in the Spirit World-perhaps the Friends of(THE LONG deceased) Mike Lee or even Mike might now-after all they give out picks each day from the Hereafter-surely they must now.(sorry Monte for the allusion to a Sports Service-I know they are off limits but couldn't resist-obviously remove it if it goes against the rules).

[frankb03]

I'll sum it up this way. I want to know where I can buy all these magical supplements. In the three seasons prior to taking these magical supplements he hit 10, 18 and 20 homers. Then the year he tests positive he banged 31 followed by 41, 47 then 54.

[savage1]

I'll sum it up this way. I want to know where I can buy all these magical supplements. In the three seasons prior to taking these magical supplements he hit 10, 18 and 20 homers. Then the year he tests positive he banged 31 followed by 41, 47 then 54.

That is very logical and there is a good chance you are correct in your assessment.
However, from a legal point of view, your the argument that his home run production went up dramatically during the ensuing years because of his use of steroids without more supporting evidence for the years in question would be regarded as circumstantial evidence and/or hearsay.

[frankb03]

That is very logical and there is a good chance you are correct in your assessment.
However, from a legal point of view, your the argument that his home run production went up dramatically during the ensuing years because of his use of steroids without more supporting evidence for the years in question would be regarded as circumstantial evidence and/or hearsay.

We're not in a court room. All the fans need is circumstantial evidence to draw their own conclusion. Besides, many of a criminal have been convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. IMO the circumstantial evidence against Ortiz is damning.

[savage1]

We're not in a court room. All the fans need is circumstantial evidence to draw their own conclusion. Besides, many of a criminal have been convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. IMO the circumstantial evidence against Ortiz is damning.

It would be more damning if someone came forth with some kind of sworn testimony such as was the case with Clemens;then based on what he said yesterday, it would pretty much be indisputable that Ortiz is a liar.

[mavskidd02]

It would be more damning if someone came forth with some kind of sworn testimony such as was the case with Clemens;then based on what he said yesterday, it would pretty much be indisputable that Ortiz is a liar.

This is the worst part......

He lied to your face during the off-season about steroids.

He lied to your face when the allegations came out a few weeks ago saying " I had no idea I tested positive."

He lied to your face at his press conference yesterday about it AGAIN.

He's lied to you THREE TIMES!! And the worst part....

You actually kind of believe him.

[molta02]

That is very logical and there is a good chance you are correct in your assessment.
However, from a legal point of view, your the argument that his home run production went up dramatically during the ensuing years because of his use of steroids without more supporting evidence for the years in question would be regarded as circumstantial evidence and/or hearsay.

i'd view it as common fuking sense.

put down your red sox pom poms.

[molta02]

all this stupid press conference did yesterday was give EVERY PLAYER an automatic alibi when his name shows up on a list. basically the players association is saying that every guy COULD have been using some supplement that COULD have a positive test, and now CONVENIENTLY they can't say what they tested positive for. so every guy that gets outed can just use this excuse that the players association came up for them.

All I know is that if I was A-rod, I'd be fuming that the players association didn't give me this blanket alibi that every player here on out is going to use.

Ortiz is just as (if not a bigger) fraud than everyone else.

[savage1]

This is the worst part......

He lied to your face during the off-season about steroids.

He lied to your face when the allegations came out a few weeks ago saying " I had no idea I tested positive."

He lied to your face at his press conference yesterday about it AGAIN.

He's lied to you THREE TIMES!! And the worst part....

You actually kind of believe him.

Mavs-thats not true at all. Don't put words in my mouth and/or make assumptions.
If you read a few of my other posts, one of which was in response to what Frank said, I actually said the chances were good that he did use them.
As I stated before though, the evidence against Clemens was much stronger at least at this point because there were witnesses and sworn testimony.

[mavskidd02]

Mavs-thats not true at all. Don't put words in my mouth and/or make assumptions.
If you read a few of my other posts, one of which was in response to what Frank said, I actually said the chances were good that he did use them.
As I stated before though, the evidence against Clemens was much stronger at least at this point because there were witnesses and sworn testimony.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, relax.

Read the bold above, this means you are not sure whether he did it, and therefore kind of believe him. I'm putting 2 and 2 together.

If there is even a doubt in your mind about this asshole, then your being deceived. That is all.

[savage1]

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, relax.

Read the bold above, this means you are not sure whether he did it, and therefore kind of believe him. I'm putting 2 and 2 together.

If there is even a doubt in your mind about this asshole, then your being deceived. That is all.

Hold on-if the doubts outweighed the certainties, then I would have said that the chances are good that he did NOT use them.
Let me ask you a question:
If you were on a jury and was deciding the fate of Ortiz and Clemens(lets say going to jail), based SOLELY on the current and CLEAR EVIDENCE, who would you conclude more DEFINITIVELY used steroids-Clemens, Ortiz or no difference between the two?

[mavskidd02]

Hold on-if the doubts outweighed the certainties, then I would have said that the chances are good that he did NOT use them.
Let me ask you a question:
If you were on a jury and was deciding the fate of Ortiz and Clemens(lets say going to jail), based SOLELY on the current and CLEAR EVIDENCE, who would you conclude more DEFINITIVELY used steroids-Clemens, Ortiz or no difference between the two?

I have no clue. Who gives a crap about Clemens? David Ortiz used steroids, without a single doubt in my mind. He's a liar. That's all I've got to say about this. If you believe otherwise, you are being seriously duped.

[savage1]

I have no clue. Who gives a crap about Clemens? David Ortiz used steroids, without a single doubt in my mind. He's a liar. That's all I've got to say about this. If you believe otherwise, you are being seriously duped.

Mavs-you are avoiding the question I asked.
For the record, here are excerpts of the proof against Clemens-compare that to the ACTUAL evidence aginst Ortiz(actual is the key word, and it is irrelevant whether you or I THINK Ortiz is guilty-I am talking strictly about the evidence as presented in a determination of guilt or innocence).
When/until/if as powerful evidence is obtained against Ortiz as Clemens, I think that any fair minded person should at least wait a while before concluding that it is 100% certainty that Ortiz did use them for all of the years in which he played well for the Red Sox-if that day comes, I will say as nasty things about him as Clemens(remember also I am against lifetime suspensions for people who use this stuff going forward as opposed to fifty games and want EVERY name released on that list!):

Clemens, the All-Star pitcher and seven-time Cy Young Award winner, maintains he has never used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs. His former personal trainer, Brian McNamee, claims otherwise, testifying that he injected Clemens with human growth hormones and steroids at least 16 to 21 times from 1998 to 2001.

Mr. Clemens's testimony is also contradicted by the sworn deposition testimony and affidavit submitted to the committee by Andrew Pettitte, a former teammate of Mr. Clemens, whose testimony and affidavit reported that Mr. Clemens had admitted to him in 1999 or 2000 that he had taken human growth hormone."

[mavskidd02]

I have no clue. Who gives a crap about Clemens?

That's my answer to your question about Clemens. It's a thread about Ortiz, no?