David Ortiz Juiced: Send Handwritten Apologies to BHL's Inbox
The New York Times reported Thursday that Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz tested positive for Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) in 2003. This story will shock many Red Sox apologists but will vindicate none other than prized Bleacher Report writer BHL.
Having stated for the past several years that there is no more obvious juicer in the game than Ortiz, and having been criticized for doing so by fellow Bleacher Report writers, BHL felt a sense of pride upon hearing this news.
Ortiz, as a non-injector, was an also-ran platoon DH/first baseman for the Minnesota Twins. Ortiz came to the Red Sox as a bargain basement steal in 2003, coincidentally the very same year Ortiz tested positive for PEDs.
An interesting point to consider is that Theo Epstein, the Red Sox's "great" general manager (editor's note: please see BHL's analysis of "good" Epstein), was named in the Mitchell Report as having inquired prior to trade acquisitions about whether certain players were juice artists.
After learning a player in question, Eric Gagne, was a former juicer, Theo went through with the trade anyway. Is Theo a great evaluator of talent, or is Theo a great promoter for banned substance abuse?
This blind eye to the steroid issue would then bring into question, did Theo know of Ortiz's planned cycling upon his acquisition in 2003? Or is Theo part of a Boston-based pharmacy which helped to produce supernatural World Series titles in 2004* and 2007*?
Editor's Note: For more on the Red Sox effort to overcome the Bambino through the use of PEDs, please see BHL's February 2009 article, "Bambino's Curse Lives in the Non-Steroid Era (Red Sox '04*; Red Sox '07*)."
A bit of irony exists when considering an 86-year World Series drought was only broken on account of banned substances—things that make you go "hmmm."
David Ortiz went from platooning with fellow roid rager Jeremy Giambi in 2003 to moon- shooting home runs out of Fenway nightly like a beast.
Could juice use be any more obvious when a platoon DH/first baseman proceeds to become the Red Sox's single-season home run record holder?
Not to the Red Sox apologists.
"Ortiz has always been fat. Steroid users aren't fat." Right, steroids clearly turn the body into shredded muscle and remove all fat. That sounds logical.
"Ortiz is breaking down because he is in his mid-30s; that is normal and is typical of a non-juicer." Right, 50 home runs to whiffing at beach balls is a regular drop-off.
"Ortiz didn't have enough playing time in Minnesota; that's why he never hit like he did with the Red Sox." Pure comedy.
But today, those same apologists must face the music. Their savior, the man who delivered clutch home run after clutch home run, and one of the larger pieces of two World Series* titles, was a fraud.
Tom Werner, co-owner of the Red Sox, denied Manny Ramirez's PED injection while with the Red Sox, claiming to believe Manny only began his PED usage after departing for Los Angeles in 2008. With Manny's name also appearing in Thursday's New York Times story, Werner must now accept reality.
His players are no different than the Yankees. His players have cheated as well.
Red Sox fans celebrated euphorically in February 2009, when Alex Rodriguez was reported to have been on the infamous list of players who tested positive for PEDs in 2003. It will be interesting to see how these same fans react to their beloved David Ortiz being equal in cheating to A-Rod.
Yet all of this was obvious to those of us with our eyes open. Ortiz was an obvious juicer. Blatantly obvious.
In conclusion, your formal, handwritten apology can be submitted to the Bleacher Report Inbox of BHL. Please specify your apology is related to your doubt regarding BHL's steroid accusations of "Big Papi," and that you will doubt BHL's greatness no more.
Editor's Note: BHL correctly analyzed Ortiz's random rumblings about steroids in a February 2009 Bleacher Report article, "Ortiz Rides the Fence on Steroids Issue."
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?