from Amazon
Sunday, August 09, 2009
The Witchhunt
Back in February, I said this:
If you have 1438 players tested, the 5% to 7% range is 72 to 100.
If there are 104 named on that list, then 4 to 32 of them did not fail for the substance that was used for the survey range. If the number being reported is “at least 10” then the failure rate on the drug test can be narrowed to 5% - 6.5%.
Michael Weiner said this:
First, the number of players on the so-called “government list” meaningfully exceeds the number of players agreed by the bargaining parties to have tested positive in 2003. 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.
I am disappointed that this fact is simply being overlooked on the way to stripping the Sainthood from baseball players. There’s only a few handful of us that even mention the fact that the 104 is not the number, so why is that the number being reported? The government has a list of 104 names, but it’s less than 104 that tested positive according to MLB/MLBPA.
Furthermore, there were 1438 tests, but I don’t think that it was given to 1438 players. It’s hard to tell at this point because the MLBPA has done a simply horrible job of not setting the record straight. Indeed, the quote below is the first I’ve heard of this:
To account for this, each “test” conducted in 2003 actually consisted of a pair of collections: the first was unannounced and random, the second was approximately 7 days later, with the player advised to cease taking supplements during the interim.
So they did pay for 2 tests. Wow, further reason not to have linked the names to the tests. What a joke.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date