Red Sox DH David Ortiz today denied ever using steroids and said he is not sure why he is on the list of major leaguers who tested positive for performance enhancers in 2003.
“I never (bought) steroids, I never used steroids,” a mellow Ortiz said at a Yankee Stadium press conference.
The New York Times reported last month that Ortiz and Manny Ramirez were on the 2003 list of positive players in survey testing.
Though Ortiz previously said the players union confirmed he is on the list, the union says because the list is under court seal, it can’t confirm or deny the report.
“I don’t know why … no one can tell me why I’m on the list,” Ortiz said today during a 32-minute media session.
“I definitely was a little bit careless back in those days when I was buying supplements and vitamins over the counter — legal supplements, legal vitamins over the counter — but I never (bought) steroids or used steroids,” Ortiz said.
“I never thought buying supplements and buying vitamins would hurt anybody’s feelings. I’m sorry about that.” Ortiz said he met with the union in 2004, and though the exchange was “a little confusing,” he says he never was told he tested positive for steroids.
“I’m not here to make any excuses or anything,” Ortiz said. “I used a lot of supplements and vitamins.
“I never used or (bought) any steroids.”
Ortiz said he has been tested by Major League Baseball 15 or more times since 2003, and twice prior to the World Baseball Classic, and “never tested positive for steroids.”
“Nobody ever came out to me with anything,” Ortiz said.
Ortiz claims the situation has been difficult because he still does not know what triggered the positive test, report, and controversy that followed.
“I wouldn’t wish this on anyone,” Oritz said. “Nobody knows … nobody gives you any information, and that’s it.”
In statements ahead of Ortiz’s news conference, MLB said at least eight players — and possibly more — on the list of 104 names seized by the government did not test positive for steroids.
“There are more names on the government list (104) than the maximum number of positives that were recorded under the 2003 program (96),” their statement said. “And, as the Mitchell Report made clear, some of the 96 positives were contested by the union.
“Given the uncertainties inherent in the list, we urge the press and the public to use caution in reaching conclusions based on leaks of names, particularly from sources whose identities are not revealed.”
Weiner said some positives could have been caused by nutritional supplements and that some scientific questions remain over the 2003 survey tests.
Weiner said a player alleged to be on the list “finds himself in an extremely unfair position; his reputation has been threatened by a violation of the court’s orders, but respect for those orders now leaves him without access to the information that might permit him to restore his good name.”
Baseball said in November 2003 that 5 percent to 7 percent of the of 1,438 anonymous tests in that year’s survey were positive for banned substances, which works out to 72 to 101 tests.
“Accordingly, the presence of a player’s name on any such list does not necessarily mean that the player used a prohibited substance or that the player tested positive under our collectively bargained program,” Weiner said.
The survey was designed to determined whether baseball needed mandatory random drug testing with penalties starting in 2004, with a 5 percent threshold for positives triggering future testing. While the exact number of 2003 positives was subject to dispute, the sides never worked that out because they agreed the percentage was over the threshold.
With AP
