Aug 8th, 2009 | 12:02 pm |
The Major League Baseball Players Association is claiming that the 103 names on the now infamous leaked steroid list may not be as they seem. The MLBPA issued a statement before a potentialDavid Ortiz Mea culpa, scheduled before the Yankees Red Sox game Saturday afternoon.
In the Statement the MLBPA claims that the presence of a players name on the list does not mean that player tested positive for performance enhancing drugs.
“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,” according to the statement.
The MLBPA further asserts that the testing methods and the scientific ability in 2003 is not the same in 2009.
“Substantial scientific questions exist as to the interpretation of some of the 2003 test results. The more definitive methods that are utilized by the lab that administers the current Drug Agreement were not utilized by the lab responsible for the anonymous testing program in 2003. The collective bargaining parties did not pursue definitive answers regarding these inconclusive results, since those answers were unnecessary to the administration of the 2003 program.”
The MLBPA also said that nutritional supplements that were legal in 2003, could have triggered a 2003 positive test.
“In 2003, legally available nutritional supplements could trigger an initial “positive” test under our program. 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. Under the 2003 program, a test could be initially reported as “positive”, but not treated as such by the bargaining parties on account of the second test. “
