Skip to content

David Ortiz has a message for media haters

Feb 4, 2014, 9:23 AM EDT

Literally, he does. And he’s looking to be in pretty damn good shape too:

 

Whatever motivates you, David. After all these years and all that production I don’t think anyone doubts you, but if it moves you to go crush baseballs that’s just fine.

  1. vikesdynasty - Feb 4, 2014 at 9:28 AM

    You media pundits suck. Wish he would smash some of you in the head.

    • stex52 - Feb 4, 2014 at 9:45 AM

      Don’t you need to run off with all of your PFT buddies?

    • paperlions - Feb 4, 2014 at 9:47 AM

      I don’t think dynasty means what you think it means.

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:02 AM

        He just misspelled the middle word.

        It should be “ie” not “y”.

  2. zackd2 - Feb 4, 2014 at 9:39 AM

    Lol what? The media loves Ortiz, when’s the last time anyone questioned him about his claim to find the real answers for his failed test? Dude is a media darling.

    • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:04 AM

      When is the last time anyone cared?

      That’s kind of the media’s job. Ask questions and relay information that people care about.

      Hey, let’s ask Bill Clinton about Monica Lewinsky too. Because that’s very compelling decades later.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:09 AM

        What?

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM

        My point is no one is questioning him about it because it’s history and no one cares anymore.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM

        His point was that no one really grilled him about it in the first place because they all like him (even though that IS the media’s job). You are arguing beards versus haircuts. (apples and oranges)

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:36 AM

        Except the media that covers this sport loves to constantly bring up failed PED use, except in Ortiz’s case. The PED narrative is entirely driven by the media, but the media doesn’t want to bring it up to Ortiz.

        I don’t care either way, but you don’t find it a bit odd that this is one person the PED label hasn’t been attached to?

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM

        The only time I hear old accusations brought up is when the HOF question about players is debated. Does Andy Pettite constantly get asked? Or even Giambi for that matter?

      • cohnjusack - Feb 4, 2014 at 11:15 AM

        The only time I hear old accusations brought up is when the HOF question about players is debated.

        You must not be paying much attention.
        See: Every article mentioning Mark McGwire when he was becoming Cardinals/Dodgers hitting coach.

        Barry Bonds could be in the news tomorrow for curing cancer and somewhere in the article it would refer to his PED use and probably call him as a “disgraced former slugger”.

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 12:05 PM

        The Mark McGwire thing makes sense….because the team brought a disgraced cheater (who, through his efforts to control his image made things much worse on himself) to coach.

        Yeah, you’re going to see that with all guys (especially the biggest examples like McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod) when they do anything that gets them in the news. I was using the Hall as an example because that’s pretty much the only way most retired players end up back in the news. When their candidacy is debated.

        And guess what….when Ortiz retires and comes up for debate on his HOF candidacy the questions will arise.

        But he doesn’t get the PED label because he hasn’t been involved in a bunch of scandals like those other guys. All they have is 1 failed test at a time when there was no regulation. Until he shows up in other cases, then a lot of people are going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

        Hell:
        “Of the 104 positive tests in 2003, at most 96 would have been considered positive by Major League Baseball at the time. According to ESPN, at least eight positive tests were for substances that were not banned by MLB in 2003.”

      • tysonpunchinguterus - Feb 4, 2014 at 12:50 PM

        [quote]The only time I hear old accusations brought up is when the HOF question about players is debated. Does Andy Pettite constantly get asked? Or even Giambi for that matter?
        [/quote]

        Pettitte and Giambi both admitted to using PEDs. Ortiz did the exact opposite and then promised to conduct some fake investigation to find out why he failed that drug test. We all know why he failed that test and so does he, yet there are plenty of people in the media who gladly lick his scrotum clean every time he hits another HR and don’t seem the least bit suspicious that a guy who looked finished for a season and a half suddenly rediscovered the ability to hit over .300 and slug over .550 again at ages 35-37.

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 1:21 PM

        Well….I’m assuming that you’re aware he was injured for that “season and a half” (the first when he still slugged over .500)

        You should also check out his slugging percentage in 2009 after May.

        So really, he had an injury plagued season and a month, and in that time he still slugged over .500 for that season despite a nasty wrist injury.

        Then when he broke out of the slump he happened to slug .650 in June.

      • squintspalledorous757 - Feb 4, 2014 at 3:09 PM

        Um, everyone otuside of Red Sux Nation would like to know why he’s getting the free pass on PEDs, so keep dreaming lol

    • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 12:12 PM

      http://mlb.si.com/2013/08/07/david-ortiz-peds-biogenesis/

      And actually, to answer your original question, August.

      He was asked about it in August.

      • tysonpunchinguterus - Feb 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

        And his answer stunk. Nobody’s out to get him, but that’s pretty much the reason he gave. He also lied when the story first broke in 2009 when he said he was surprised to learn that he failed the test and had just been told about it. The Mitchell Report says that players who failed were notified by the union after the government seized the test results. But hey, once every 4 years or so a reporter will ask him about it and nobody will call him out for giving a BS answer.

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 1:44 PM

        He never said anyone was out to get him.

        He said he was never informed what he tested positive for.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sports/baseball/09ortiz.html

        Now just working on the assumption that he IS telling the truth, what exactly more is it you want him to say?

      • tysonpunchinguterus - Feb 4, 2014 at 2:22 PM

        When asked about it in August, this is what he said:

        “No. Nobody. Not MLB. Not the Players Association. Nobody. They just threw it out there that I tested positive on this one list and that was it. Nothing. So I have to deal with that, and your mind is all over the place. And I’ve lived with it. I don’t think I’m going to have a worse year than ’09 and I came out of it. That’s the one thing I look at and the one thing I tell myself, “If you survive through that, you’re a warrior.” A lot of things went down that year. Things I had nothing to do with. It was somebody was trying to hurt me. It is something that is still in the dark because nobody ever had the [guts] to come to me and say, ‘This is what was happening.’ You damaged my image at the time, and it has always stayed like that. No explanation. No nothing. A lot of things happen in your career that has to do with bad people trying to do stupid things.”

        Now, who was trying to hurt him? In 2009, he claimed he wasn’t aware that he tested positive until the union told him so AFTER the story leaked. But we know that he’s not telling the truth there because the Mitchell Report states that the union notified the players who failed the 2003 tests after the samples were seized by the government. So was the leak the act of someone out to hurt him? Keep in mind, Manny’s failed test was leaked the same day and they aren’t the only 2 players who were named over the years.

        Even if the leak was what he meant when he said that, that still doesn’t explain why he failed the test. Again, in 2009 he said he was told by the union that he did indeed fail that 2003 test. So is he suggesting that the failed test wasn’t his fault? If so, then whose fault is it? It seems like he’s been trying to play the “act innocent and blame unknown mystery people” game.

        If he honestly doesn’t know what he took to make him fail that test, why did he lie and say he had never been notified that he failed the test? Those were his words so he can’t blame that part on anyone else trying to hurt him. If he had nothing to hide, why did he lie instead of just saying that the union told him he failed after the samples were seized?

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 2:33 PM

        Read the article I linked to.

        He said it was tainted supplements.

        You can believe him or not. Just like in all cases.

        He won’t be held to the same standard as A-Rod or anyone else who has been involved in MULTIPLE instances until there is actually addition evidence.

        He can’t even question his accuser because no one knows who leaked the info. It’s an absolute no-win situation.

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 2:39 PM

        I will also point out that of those leaked named, Ortiz is the only one who hasn’t been caught up in other scandals or admitted to a pattern of abuse.

      • tysonpunchinguterus - Feb 4, 2014 at 3:49 PM

        Here’s Ortiz’s original response to the story leaking:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/sports/baseball/31doping.html?_r=2&ref=baseball&

        Why did it take him over a week to come up with the good old “tainted supplements” excuse and why did he say on 07/30/09 article that, “I have just been told that the report is true,” when the very next paragraph of the article shows that his statement was a lie?

        “But the Mitchell report, which was released in December 2007, said that players who tested positive in 2003 were notified by the union after the tests were seized.”

        If he’s telling the truth and took a tainted supplement, why did he lie about when he was told about the failed test? There’s no reason to lie there unless there’s something to hide. So now that we know that he liead about that, why should we give him the benefit of the doubt and believe the tainted supplement excuse?

      • tysonpunchinguterus - Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM

        As for the part about not being involved in any other scandals:

        Sure, he hasn’t failed a test since then. Of course, neither did A-Rod and we all know how that turned out. The league just got around to testing for HGH this year. Nobody can say for a fact that he’s still using unless he gets caught, but there’s plenty of reason to be suspicious. His track record on this isn’t one of honesty.

        Then there’s his association with Angel Presinal.
        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/redsox/2009-02-21-ortiz-trainer_N.htm
        . . .
        Ortiz said the facility is not owned by Presinal and he’s not worried his name will be linked with others accused of steroid use. He urged major leaguers to be cautious in their relationships.

        “You are the owner of your own decisions,” he said. “It’s sad that’s he’s involved in things like this but you have to be careful.”
        . . .

        5 months later his name was leaked as one of the guys to fail the 2003 test. Whoops!

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 4:12 PM

        You want me to theorize on someone’s reasoning, or things he remembers or doesn’t remember from a decade ago?

        I don’t know. Maybe his agent didn’t notify him after the union notified his agent. Maybe he’s one of the 8 that make up the discrepancy between the 96 and 104. Maybe none of those guys were notified because it was deemed a false positive.

        Who knows? Did you even notice the part about the union being barred from even discussing the matter WITH THE PLAYER INVOLVED?

        That’s my point. That’s why he gets the benefit of the doubt (because of all the, you know…DOUBT). Until he is caught up in an ACTUAL scandal, or he admits that he used steroid, that’s how it’s going to remain. I don’t know what you want from me.

      • tysonpunchinguterus - Feb 4, 2014 at 4:42 PM

        I’m just saying that if I was told that I failed a drug test, I’d remember being told. When asked about it 2 years later, I’d remember. It’s not like someone’s asking me what I have for breakfast on July 15, 2006 and I say I don’t know and then someone finds a text message in which I say I had a glazed donut.

        I tend to give players the benefit of the doubt unless they either fail a test, get caught some other way, or make it obvious in some way (Sosa and McGwire, for example). But once it’s clear that a player is lying about what happened, then they lose the benefit of the doubt in my eyes. Sure, he COULD have taken a bad supplement. But when he tries to sell me on the idea that he’s the only player from the 2003 failures that wasn’t notified, then he loses credibility. When it comes out that he’s associated with a guy MLB banned from their facilities because he was dealing PEDs AND I know he lied about what he was told regarding his failed test? The known facts start to outweigh the plausible deniability. Maybe that doesn’t convince you, and that’s fine, but I’m not buying his act. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    • moogro - Feb 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM

      Do it for us that are media hater that still not doubting.

  3. crispybasil - Feb 4, 2014 at 9:49 AM

    I don’t know why he didn’t just call out Shaughnessy directly.

  4. cur'68 - Feb 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM

    He’s lookin’ lean and mean. It still a fact that he hit real well as a flabby guy, though. Will Skinny Papi hit as well as Fatty Papi?

    • historiophiliac - Feb 4, 2014 at 2:27 PM

      What’s with the ‘ ?

      • nbjays - Feb 4, 2014 at 7:22 PM

        Cur is going through an “apostrophe phase”. It’s apparently a thing…

      • cur'68 - Feb 4, 2014 at 7:44 PM

        Got me some grammar.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 4, 2014 at 7:49 PM

        I call BS.

  5. drewsylvania - Feb 4, 2014 at 9:54 AM

    I’m a Red Sox fan–and this picture almost looks photoshopped. It’s either that, or his head is borderline grotesquely large on that body.

    • anxovies - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:04 AM

      That happens when you stuff the body with PEDs. Note that despite all of the allegations ARod’s hat size is the same as when he was a rookie.

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:07 AM

        Brilliant.

        That is CLEARLY the case.

        http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/david-ortiz-ultra.jpg
        http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eK3kDWg96tY/TsHy0saji-I/AAAAAAAAQRU/PwNF7tvG-bM/s1600/ortiz03toppsher.jpg
        http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/ortizdavidfl.jpg
        http://mlblogsrattlerradio.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/96davidortiz.jpg

      • vivabear - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:36 AM

        That could make some sense, since he’s accused of using PEDs since he was in high school.

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 11:57 AM

        So….which is it? His head is bigger than when he was a rookie, or he’s always used PEDs (but they didn’t start working until 2003)?

      • vivabear - Feb 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM

        Arod? I meant that if his hat size is the same now as 1993, and someone wants to point to that as evidence he hasn’t used (or used scarcely) PEDs – my response would be that he’s accused of using in HS. So, maybe his skull maxed out it’s growth (natural plus PED skull growth) before he made it to the bigs.

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

        I thought you were referring to Ortiz.

        My bad.

    • chip56 - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:09 AM

      Barry Bonds-esque

    • lphboston - Feb 4, 2014 at 2:26 PM

      Yep, his head looks bigger than Barry Bonds’s head when Bonds was . . . you know

  6. chill1184 - Feb 4, 2014 at 9:57 AM

    So is he ITBSOHI?

  7. chip56 - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:08 AM

    It baffles me how professional athletes who get paid millions of dollars to play a game need to be motivated to either get in shape, work on their craft or get up for a particular game based on comments from the media, fans or opposing teams.

    You mean to tell me that if members of the media hadn’t called out Ortiz a couple of years ago for being fat, old and in decline he wouldn’t have worked to get himself back into shape so that he could extend his career and complain some more about his contract?

    Buffoons…all of them.

    • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:23 AM

      Most people don’t appreciate just how hard a worker David Ortiz is.

      Unless you’re a Red Sox fan, you probably don’t know that he was notoriously bad against left handed pitchers. In 2003 he OPSed .674 against lefties.

      In 2004 he raised that by 100 points. In 2005 he raised it ANOTHER 100 points. In 2006 he raised it ANOTHER 100 points.

      How can anyone look at those numbers, and see the work he put in to improve that area of his game, and question his motivation or work ethic?

      • chip56 - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:26 AM

        You’re totally missing my point. Ortiz is acting as if his working out and getting in shape is his way of flipping off the “media haters.” If I’m Ortiz I couldn’t give a crap about what the media has to say about me, I’m going to work out and stay in shape because it’s my damn job and I get paid a ton of money to do it and want to keep on doing it for another few years.

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:29 AM

        I just pointed to one example of him raising his game for the purpose of being a better baseball player.

        Just because someone suggests a source of motivation doesn’t mean it’s a sole source of motivation.

        It’s actually pretty stupid to think any motivation is derived from a single source.

      • chip56 - Feb 4, 2014 at 2:35 PM

        then why be such a tool about it? Why not just post the picture with the caption “in great shape ready for the season” rather than calling out “media haters.” And Ortiz is not the only one. Guys on the Seattle offense were saying that all the “disrespect” they were getting compared to the Manning led Bronco offense helped them get up for the game…It’s the Super Bowl and you need comments that you take as “disrespectful” to help get you motivated to play? What the hell is wrong with these people?

      • tfbuckfutter - Feb 4, 2014 at 3:22 PM

        Do you go into work everyday motivated to earn every last cent of your paycheck?

        Of course not. Why hold ballplayers to different standards? It’s still their job, just because what they do is more important to more people than jockeying a register or whatever….but you still have to find sources of motivation to up your performance in anything.

        Money is rarely motivation enough for long term results. And when it comes to an event like to Super Bowl, every course almost everyone is motivated as hell to play in that game….so yeah, you look for those extra little things to fire up the team. In that situation it’s not about motivating yourself to do your best, it’s about making sure everyone on your side is MORE motivated than everyone on the other side.

        That’s one of the biggest parts of a coach’s job. Making sure everyone is fired up.

    • km9000 - Feb 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM

      Ortiz is like the guy who reads blog posts and takes the effort to comment about how he doesn’t care.

  8. mplsjoe - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:13 AM

    Would you say, Craig, that Ortiz looks to be In The Best Shape of His Life?

  9. historiophiliac - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:14 AM

    “If you can read this, I’m arguing balls & strikes with you.”

  10. scoutsaysweitersisabust - Feb 4, 2014 at 11:55 AM

    So to update our running list we now have: Did I miss anything?

    Things Ortiz doesn’t like:
    Haterz
    Doubterz
    Media
    Slim Fast
    Telephones
    Urine Samples
    DIets
    1 year Contracts

    Things Ortiz does like:
    Short right field porches
    Beards
    Unnamed substances
    Long Walks on the beach
    Poetry
    Grammar
    Biggie Smalls

    • Alex K - Feb 4, 2014 at 12:11 PM

      To be fair to Ortiz Biggie Smalls is the illest!

  11. richwizl - Feb 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM

    .300 BA, 30 HR’s and 100 RBI outta do it. Let’s go Papi!

  12. yordo - Feb 4, 2014 at 4:20 PM

    What’s with the sudden weight loss, David? Your beef was the key to your success.

  13. mikhelb - Feb 4, 2014 at 10:06 PM

    Looks like Angel Presinal still has the magic touch in his special dominican milkshakes

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Soler (3910)
  2. Y. Molina (2889)
  3. R. Castillo (2830)
  4. B. Posey (2250)
  5. A. Rizzo (2151)
  1. J. Ellsbury (2134)
  2. D. Murphy (1927)
  3. D. Wright (1912)
  4. M. Cabrera (1908)
  5. A. Dunn (1890)