Comments on: Nomar : ’03 PED List Includes Martyrs http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/nomar-03-list-includes-martrys Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:16:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: itsmetsforme http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/nomar-03-list-includes-martrys/comment-page-1#comment-1260846 itsmetsforme Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:44:17 +0000 http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/?p=18466#comment-1260846 Have to admit, Nomah's gambit is pretty clever, for a ballplayer. I have yet to hear a good explanation of why players' names were linked with their tests in the first place, since it was supposed to be a non-binding, non-punitive anonymous kind of thing. But as for Nomah's fairy story, it defies my logic for the data not be labeled differently in the case of someone who just refused to take the test...there'd be no pee! And if a player who was on the juice could "intentionally flunk" the test by withholding their urine, why would anyone using willingly participate? Have to admit, Nomah’s gambit is pretty clever, for a ballplayer. I have yet to hear a good explanation of why players’ names were linked with their tests in the first place, since it was supposed to be a non-binding, non-punitive anonymous kind of thing. But as for Nomah’s fairy story, it defies my logic for the data not be labeled differently in the case of someone who just refused to take the test…there’d be no pee! And if a player who was on the juice could “intentionally flunk” the test by withholding their urine, why would anyone using willingly participate?

]]> By: Ben Schwartz http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/nomar-03-list-includes-martrys/comment-page-1#comment-1260817 Ben Schwartz Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:10 +0000 http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/?p=18466#comment-1260817 It should be easy enough for a Real Reporter With Access to check with the players union and see if the charge he's making is true -- that a) opting out of the test meant you were marked positive, or b) that you could be marked positive without ever being physically tested. I think the union would have brought this up already since February, but who knows -- I guess their credibility is on the line here, too. So far the assumption has been that the list of 104 comes from actual samples, that can be tested and retested, like the Bonds sample. If Nomar is right, there's a large chunk of the Mitchell Report that needs a "delete" key. I am of course happy to hear Nomar cite the South Siders as intentionally lying on the results, but I'm always biased that way. It should be easy enough for a Real Reporter With Access to check with the players union and see if the charge he’s making is true — that a) opting out of the test meant you were marked positive, or b) that you could be marked positive without ever being physically tested. I think the union would have brought this up already since February, but who knows — I guess their credibility is on the line here, too. So far the assumption has been that the list of 104 comes from actual samples, that can be tested and retested, like the Bonds sample. If Nomar is right, there’s a large chunk of the Mitchell Report that needs a “delete” key.

I am of course happy to hear Nomar cite the South Siders as intentionally lying on the results, but I’m always biased that way.

]]>