In response to maxbialystock's comment:
I agree with royf19--it's OK if Shaugnessy raises the subject because it is probably on some peoples' minds. It's also possible Ortiz is guilty, but I don't think so for reasons stated above. It's a good topic for a thread.
To me, the weakest argument I've heard for why he could be guilty is when people say -- he looked washed up three years ago.
They're basing it on TWO BAD MONTHS to start the 2009 season and look at his .238 batting average. What they conveniently ignore is the fact that Ortiz was recovering from the wrist injury.
Yaz was better at 37-38-39 than he was at 32-33 because he was healthier. Yaz had some injuries in 1971, the worst of which was the wrist injury that sapped his power for basically one year -- the last month or so 1971 and the first four or five months of 1972. When he got the wrist stronger, he got some of his power back.
So it's not hard to blame the first two months of 2009 on Ortiz's wrist injury. The last four months, his power and RBI numbers were great and he batted almost .270.
Since then, he's been fine. He had a bad month to start 2010 but if you look around, it's not odd to find power hitters who have bad Aprils. May came he started raking. His problem that year, which might be traced back to the wrist injury when his swing was probably affected, was that his numbers weren't great against lefites. But traditionally, Ortiz was good against lefties. So it isn't hard to believe that he worked on his approach against lefties and got back to where he was against them.
In the pre-steroid era, it wasn't odd for power hitters to reach their early 30s then fall apart. But there have been hitters who have hit well into their late 30s too.
So if people are going to raise plausible scenarios on why he's guilty, they also need to look at plausible scenarios on why he could be clean too.