Front Page: Michael Pineda Suspended 60 Games For Banned Substance

[Only Here in Negative]

 

 

 

I'm asking why it matters if he was also taking PEDs. He took a banned substance. He didn't work with the team, which is super easy to do. People defending him are hoping, not really thinking about the fact he didn't work with team doctors, paid to work with him....

 

Two factors:

 

1.) If he took PEDs, his performance this year would be suspect. It would be harder to consider signing him in the offseason because you'd know that you weren't going to get ace-lite pitcher Michael Pineda unless he juiced again, in which case you can't depend on him.

 

2.) The moral aspect exists. There's nothing morally wrong with taking a diuretic - except that so many guys use it to mask PEDs. It's more structurally wrong than morally wrong. Yeah we ban it but if someone was taking it without masking PEDs, that's a lot easier to stomach. It's like if you caught me buying weed but they were for my Grandpa who has bone cancer and the pain meds aren't working vs. you caught me buying weed to resell at the local high school. It's illegal but the moral imperative behind the law is to stop trafficking, not to stop someone using it for an end-of-life situation. I think most people would forgive me in the first case and let me babysit their children and in the second, might meet me at the door with a shotgun.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

IMO the level of anger shouldn't change based on whether you believe it was to mask PEDs or simply an extreme lapse in judgment. 

 

Interesting. I think that you're looking at this from a fan's perspective - "He's not playing for the team when it matters and it either involved stupidity or cheating, who cares which?" That's a valid POV but I think some other posters (Including myself) are looking at it from a moral POV. It's hard to cheer for MLB teams sometimes with the PED aspect because there's something morally wrong about taking drugs that make you perform better. It is harder to cheer for guys (though not impossible as Cruz and Polanco show). I'd be way more inclined to bring Pineda back if he wasn't taking PEDs that if he was. I'd also be more upset if he was cheating because it casts doubt on the Twins success this year.

 

Its like if your friend gets arrested for a fight outside a bar - it matters whether they were picking the fight or just happened to get swept into it. It was probably a dumb decision to be in that bar regardless but I have more sympathy if he didn't push that drunk guy and start the thing.

[USAFChief]

 

Um no. 

Um, YES.

 

He took the pills intentionally. Nobody slipped them into his morning smoothie. He said as much.

 

The pills contained a substance that is banned. 

 

The substance is banned because it is a known masking agent.

 

Everything in my statement is factual.

 

I agree there's at least some room to consider he might have been taking the pills for reasons other than masking PEDs. 

 

However, that doesn't change anything about my statement.

 

(And as an aside, it's a looooooong stretch to think he took them solely to lose weight. There are so many other ways to lose weight, and this substance is not an over the counter medication, so it had to have been obtained either illegally, or from another country, which is itself enough to call into question why he'd be taking pills given by a friend from another country. Irregardless, even if 100 percent through stupidity, it changes nothing about my statement).

 

 

[USAFChief]

 

No, he's banned because he took a banned substance. I don't think anyone has stated that he knew he was taking hydrochlorothiazide or that he intentionally took any substance that he knew was banned.

See above. 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

In my opinion, it's pretty easy to believe that Pineda didn't intend to take a banned substance (hence the reduced suspension) while also believing what he did was incredibly stupid and inexcusable.

 

I don't see how those two opinions conflict in any way.

[laloesch]

 

In my opinion, it's pretty easy to believe that Pineda didn't intend to take a banned substance (hence the reduced suspension) while also believing what he did was incredibly stupid and inexcusable.

 

I don't see how those two opinions conflict in any way.

 

Why?  Are we supposed to take his word as gospel? For all we know the reduced suspension could have been on a technicality or some negotiation and not because of the sob story claiming ignorance. 

 

People lie all the time when caught and this is no different. He obviously was breaking the rules and tried to cover it up and got caught. Why should we believe him now? Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe not. I just find it hard to believe cheaters and liars but that's just me.

Edited September 10, 2019 by laloesch

[laloesch]

 

Apparently MLB did because they decreased his suspension time, the first time I've ever heard of that happening in the 20+ suspensions I've paid attention to over the years.

 

Alex Rodriguez got his suspension significantly reduced and so did Eliézer Alfonzo.

Edited September 10, 2019 by laloesch

[Mr. Brooks]

In my opinion, it's pretty easy to believe that Pineda didn't intend to take a banned substance (hence the reduced suspension) while also believing what he did was incredibly stupid and inexcusable.

 

I don't see how those two opinions conflict in any way.

I don't think stupidity alone can explain why he would take something that can only be attained by prescription, illegally, or from a foreign country, without running it by the trainers.

 

These players are explicitly told that they can run anything by the training staff to find out if it's ok to take. Again, I think it's very important to restate that they are explicitly told this. It's not some implicit procedure that the team just hopes the players are smart enough to figure out, they are told.

 

Stupidity alone doesn't explain why he wouldn't run this past the training staff if he was, in his mind, taking it for legitimate purposes. IMO, he doesn't run it past the training staff because he either already knows, or doesn't want to know, that it's banned.

[Linus]

Does anybody find it pertinent that of the hundreds of guys busted for PEDs they all had a story claiming to not have known? I think Andy Petite May have fessed up but that is it. To consider what they are saying as an excuse is silly

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

It's not productive for a MLB player to do this at this point in the season.  What's the end game? lose 3 or 4 or 10 pounds of water weight TEMPORARILY by dehydrating yourself with a diuretic just to march out to the mound in mid 90's Weather depending on where your location and feel like total crap?  comeonnnn. Does anybody really buy that?  

 

The only reason to do this is to cover up something else your taking. Anyone that has sweated out before an anticipated drug test for a job knows what i'm talking about. There are literally hundreds of websites claiming to sell remedies that will cleanse your system in such a fashion.

 

It's probably worth noting that you cannot assume the person taking the medicine knows it's a diuretic. People buy into that quick weight loss and sometimes don't ask the questions as to how it is. I wouldn't assume he knew it was water weight. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I mostly agree with you but, going back and reading LA Vikes and Glunn affirms this for me.

Pineda’s intent isn’t clear, reading several times previously including Glunn’s shared article https://www.goodrx.com/blog/common-prescription-medications-found-in-dietary-supplements/ that supplements are notoriously not very well regulated. My previous job was in food distribution and we never ever handled supplements to avoid risk to our certifications.

As I said above, it’s not clear what Pineda’s intent was on taking some particular substance. There’s been speculation that he took diet pills to lose weight, but we don’t know that.

He may have thought he was taking a daily multivitamin for all we know. What we do know is he made a case for his intent in taking that substance that contained a banned diuretic that it was not to hide PEDs.

Make no mistake, I’m mad at him for taking that substance. I’m not ready to label him a PED user because he made the case of intent with the Arbitrator.

 

My wife is in this line of work too.. There's a lot less regulation there. I'm not really giving Pineda a pass. He screwed up... but this is very possible that he took a tainted supplement. That's why he should have gone through MLBs process.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

Um, YES.

 

He took the pills intentionally. Nobody slipped them into his morning smoothie. He said as much.

 

The pills contained a substance that is banned. 

 

The substance is banned because it is a known masking agent.

 

Everything in my statement is factual.

 

I agree there's at least some room to consider he might have been taking the pills for reasons other than masking PEDs. 

 

However, that doesn't change anything about my statement.

 

(And as an aside, it's a looooooong stretch to think he took them solely to lose weight. There are so many other ways to lose weight, and this substance is not an over the counter medication, so it had to have been obtained either illegally, or from another country, which is itself enough to call into question why he'd be taking pills given by a friend from another country. Irregardless, even if 100 percent through stupidity, it changes nothing about my statement).

 

Yes. You've proven that one can make a series of factual statements but still misinterpret them. He did intentionally take the pills. But that doesn't mean that he intentionally took the underlying substance. If I eat some brownies at a party when I was 15 and they are laced with pot, that doesn't mean I intentionally got high. It means I intentionally ate brownies. That would hopefully change how my parents punished me and their view of my judgment.

 

The aside: I agree. If he got suspended 80 games it would be absolutely ridiculous to speculate about anything other than PEDs. We'd be willfully blind. But that isn't the case. For the first time ever, an arbitrator reduced the suspension. That means there's something else there so speculating about it seems fair. I was very careful to indicate that I have no idea if it has anything to do with weight loss. But diuretics are commonly used for weight loss and Pineda's weight has been a personal and team issue in the past. So is it that crazy to, with a caveat, bring that up as a possibility? I don't think so.

 

And you're right it changes nothing about your statement's factualness. But your statement has no concept of nuance to it. I'm only 35 but maybe the most important thing I've learned is that things are almost never black and white. Digging into something and asking questions almost always gives you a richer, more accurate view of the issue. I'm not sure why you seem to be resistant to people doing that on this thread. No one has said that he wasn't dumb. We have said that perhaps he isn't a cheater and perhaps the level of anger at him is misguided. Those are not the same thing.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

It's probably worth noting that you cannot assume the person taking the medicine knows it's a diuretic. People buy into that quick weight loss and sometimes don't ask the questions as to how it is. I wouldn't assume he knew it was water weight. 

 

True. How many people really know how their pills work? Especially if your career path didn't involve a lot of chemistry or biology classes.
 

That said, if you're an MLB player and have access to team docs, definitely dumb not to lean on those resources. 

[Only Here in Negative]

 

Does anybody find it pertinent that of the hundreds of guys busted for PEDs they all had a story claiming to not have known? I think Andy Petite May have fessed up but that is it. To consider what they are saying as an excuse is silly

 

I'd agree except that the arbitrator reduced the suspension for the first time ever. That points to the strong possibility that he had proof there were no PEDs involved. It could be something else but that's the most likely. That's why every time I want to say "PEDS", I take a step back.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

Alex Rodriguez got his suspension significantly reduced and so did Eliézer Alfonzo.

 

These are interesting to compare.

 

I don't think that A-Rods is particularly useful. The current system came into effect in March 2014. A-Rod's activity was before that. There weren't the set-in-stone suspensions there are now and Selig pretty clearly went after A-Rod hard because he was a public figure and had been busted before. So the arbitrator's decision to reduce from 211 to 162 games was more about perceived harshness.

 

Alfonzo is also before the current regime (it happened in 2012) so I'm not sure it sets a precedent or negates the statements about the current system. What is interesting is that it was due to a procedural error (similar to Braun's but actually true), which was made public. I wonder if they still make these things public if its procedural? That would lend credence to the "he proved it wasn't intentional" POV. But maybe the current system is just more private (which would be good, the players have been repeatedly betrayed and tried in the public arena when they were promised anonymity). 

[USAFChief]

 

Yes. You've proven that one can make a series of factual statements but still misinterpret them. He did intentionally take the pills. But that doesn't mean that he intentionally took the underlying substance. If I eat some brownies at a party when I was 15 and they are laced with pot, that doesn't mean I intentionally got high. It means I intentionally ate brownies. That would hopefully change how my parents punished me and their view of my judgment.

 

The aside: I agree. If he got suspended 80 games it would be absolutely ridiculous to speculate about anything other than PEDs. We'd be willfully blind. But that isn't the case. For the first time ever, an arbitrator reduced the suspension. That means there's something else there so speculating about it seems fair. I was very careful to indicate that I have no idea if it has anything to do with weight loss. But diuretics are commonly used for weight loss and Pineda's weight has been a personal and team issue in the past. So is it that crazy to, with a caveat, bring that up as a possibility? I don't think so.

 

And you're right it changes nothing about your statement's factualness. But your statement has no concept of nuance to it. I'm only 35 but maybe the most important thing I've learned is that things are almost never black and white. Digging into something and asking questions almost always gives you a richer, more accurate view of the issue. I'm not sure why you seem to be resistant to people doing that on this thread. No one has said that he wasn't dumb. We have said that perhaps he isn't a cheater and perhaps the level of anger at him is misguided. Those are not the same thing.

False.

 

Eliezer Alfonso, Alex Rodriguez, and Raul Mondesi all had their initial suspensions reduced.

 

Few, but not none.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_performance-enhancing_drugs

 

 

 

[Only Here in Negative]

 

 

I don't believe I've seen any posters say that they don't want him back on moral grounds.

I have seen some posters who seem to suggest they don't want him back because he torpedoed his teammates shot at winning a world series title. Which wasn't the case when Polanco got popped.

 

So, if you don’t want Pineda back in 2020 based on morals, you must really hate having Polanco on the team. And if you don’t want him back because you think his performance will collapse coming off the suspension, then you’ve ignored Polanco. I think you’re entitled to either opinion. But I don’t share either.

 

Sorry going back a bit but I think I was the person who introduced Polanco and morals.

 

1.) I think morals are always complicated. Does a PED thing impact my view of a player? Absolutely. Is it the only thing? No. I probably don't love Polanco as much as I might because of the PED but I still enjoy watching him play and hope to love him more over the years as he continues to make better choices. Its like when your kid does something bad. You're disappointed but they can earn trust back.

 

2.) We really need to cut this false narrative that Polanco's suspension didn't leave his teammates out to dry. The Twins were coming off a playoff berth heading into a big season. They flopped and Polanco being down was a big part of it. They were forced to play Ehire and his 85 OPS+ a ton in the first half and lacked the depth to handle Sano's injury/suspension issues. Yes there were other factors like Buxton's injuries and issues with starting and relief pitching but that doesn't mean that Polanco's suspension wasn't a huge loss for a team that had expectations.

 

I also have a hard time saying one is worse than the others because of how well the team is doing. Its not like Pineda's lapse in judgement/behavior is any worse if Gibby and Perez and Berrios were all pitching well and we were just like, "Well, now we know the postseason rotation." It might hurt less as a fan but it doesn't change the severity of the crime.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

 

False.

 

Eliezer Alfonso, Alex Rodriguez, and Raul Mondesi all had their initial suspensions reduced.

 

Few, but not none.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_performance-enhancing_drugs

 

Those first two are under the prior agreements about suspension. Things were not as delineated as they are today and there were still snafus in the collection process that have subsequently been rubbed out.

 

But Mondesi Jr. was reduced during the current regime of PED rules. And he was reduced because he showed that intent was not there, which is what many (including myself) have been discussing as a likely rationale for tempering criticism of Pineda.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Alex Rodriguez got his suspension significantly reduced and so did Eliézer Alfonzo.

As mentioned later, but I want to emphasize again, A-Rod's reduced sentence was before the current MLB guidelines were instituted and was an attempt at temperance to the overly harsh sentence Rodriguez received to "teach everyone a lesson".

 

A-Rod's situation basically led to the modern guidelines because they were so irrational and unfair. Not exactly a great example to use for Pineda.

[KirbyDome89]

 

3. You're ignoring the reduction in games. That is unprecedented in the history of PED arbitration and clearly signals something. We don't know why the arbitrator did that (and likely never will), but that's pretty compelling evidence, particularly when the evidence against it is pretty tenuous.

 

 

5. Occam's razor actually supports giving him a break. The theory holds that the explanation that involves the least speculation is likely true. In this case, there's direct evidence that there was no intent to cheat from the arbitrator's unprecedented reduction. The other side is based on speculation. Its hard to construct a scenario in which Pineda is able to cheat but convince the arbitrator he wasn't. There must have been some extensive evidence.

I'm not sure how a complete lack of knowledge as to why an arbitrator would reduce the suspension is compelling evidence but the rationale offered by Pineda, the timing, and the drug he tested positive for all casting suspicion is tenuous. We're all speculating. The arbitrator's decision isn't direct or clear evidence of anything. We know Pineda tested positive in season. We know the statement he gave, and we know what the drug is used for. 

 

One explanation is much more simplistic than the other. 

 

Scenario 1:

He took a prescription diuretic to mask PED use and was caught

 

The only point of speculation is that the drug was masking PEDs

 

Scenario 2: 

He decided he needed to lose weight a month before the postseason started

An associate just so happened to have pills that would help him do that

Despite pitching professionally for 12 seasons Pineda and fully understanding the implications of taking substances outside team approval he ingests the pills 

The pills either happened to be, or contain trace amounts of hydrocholorthiazide and Pineda was entirely unaware

An arbitrator rules that Pineda couldn't have known he was taking a banned substance and reduces his suspension from 60 to 40 games. 

 

You're speculating that he didn't know what he was taking, that his decision not to involve the Twin's medical and training staffs was innocent negligence, and that a reduction to 40 games affirms each of the previous assumptions. 

 

I would say Occam's Razor actually supports my leaning.  

 

Interesting. I think that you're looking at this from a fan's perspective - "He's not playing for the team when it matters and it either involved stupidity or cheating, who cares which?" That's a valid POV but I think some other posters (Including myself) are looking at it from a moral POV. It's hard to cheer for MLB teams sometimes with the PED aspect because there's something morally wrong about taking drugs that make you perform better. It is harder to cheer for guys (though not impossible as Cruz and Polanco show). I'd be way more inclined to bring Pineda back if he wasn't taking PEDs that if he was. I'd also be more upset if he was cheating because it casts doubt on the Twins success this year.

 

Its like if your friend gets arrested for a fight outside a bar - it matters whether they were picking the fight or just happened to get swept into it. It was probably a dumb decision to be in that bar regardless but I have more sympathy if he didn't push that drunk guy and start the thing.

IMO the morality issue becomes blurry and extremely arbitrary when we start arguing over who is a "cheater," who is forgiven, whose success is suspicious, ect. 

[Only Here in Negative]

I don't know if this changes anything but yesterday's Athletic piece featured Pineda opening up. Obviously players have a reason to lie about these things but Pineda did indicate that he was taking a weight loss drug and was doing so because he'd put on weight after his surgeries and was trying to take stress off his knees. Again, he could be lying of course but that makes a certain amount of sense. And of course the arbitrator reduced it for a still unconfirmed reason.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

 

IMO the morality issue becomes blurry and extremely arbitrary when we start arguing over who is a "cheater," who is forgiven, whose success is suspicious, ect. 

 

Morality questions are always murky and always a bit of a personal preference thing (my morals are not your morals). That said, there is a universal sense of morals and its always worthwhile to explore that. 

[Only Here in Negative]

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure how a complete lack of knowledge as to why an arbitrator would reduce the suspension is compelling evidence but the rationale offered by Pineda, the timing, and the drug he tested positive for all casting suspicion is tenuous. We're all speculating. The arbitrator's decision isn't direct or clear evidence of anything. We know Pineda tested positive in season. We know the statement he gave, and we know what the drug is used for. 

 

One explanation is much more simplistic than the other. 

 

Scenario 1:

He took a prescription diuretic to mask PED use and was caught

 

The only point of speculation is that the drug was masking PEDs

 

Scenario 2: 

He decided he needed to lose weight a month before the postseason started

An associate just so happened to have pills that would help him do that

 

I would say Occam's Razor actually supports my leaning.  

 

 

1. It wasn't a month before the postseason. He was notified two months ago (he provided a timeline yesterday) and the appeal took that long. He presumably took it before then, which likely means this started very early in the season. The drug process is not quick (and if you think that Pineda was cheating, that's kind of an issue. He got to pitch for two whole months after he tested positive. If the PED crowd was serious about the "integrity of the game" they should be howling now.)

 

2. My point is simply that arbitrators don't reduce suspensions for no reason. They've only done it once before during the current regime. That points to one of two things - a procedural issue they gave him credit for or he convinced the arbitrator this truly was an accidental ingestion. The first is very unlikely since baseball has cleared up the collection process and no one has indicated that is a reason (and in the past, players have been fast to do that). So that evidence clearly points to the latter. Which of course doesn't mean that Pineda didn't pull a fast one on the arbitrator. Though that seems unlikely since no one else has been able to.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't know if this changes anything but yesterday's Athletic piece featured Pineda opening up. Obviously players have a reason to lie about these things but Pineda did indicate that he was taking a weight loss drug and was doing so because he'd put on weight after his surgeries and was trying to take stress off his knees. Again, he could be lying of course but that makes a certain amount of sense. And of course the arbitrator reduced it for a still unconfirmed reason.

But what is his motive for not going to the team trainers if he legitimately just wanted to lose weight? That's what I can't get past.

And it's not just "stupidity". He knows the team has professional trainers. He knows the trainers can clear any supplements.

Those are two things he knows. He doesn't need any intelligence to know those two things.

 

So, knowing those two things, what is his motivation for going to a "buddy" rather than the team trainers?

[Mr. Brooks]

1. It wasn't a month before the postseason. He was notified two months ago (he provided a timeline yesterday) and the appeal took that long. He presumably took it before then, which likely means this started very early in the season. The drug process is not quick (and if you think that Pineda was cheating, that's kind of an issue. He got to pitch for two whole months after he tested positive. If the PED crowd was serious about the "integrity of the game" they should be howling now.)

 

2. My point is simply that arbitrators don't reduce suspensions for no reason. They've only done it once before during the current regime. That points to one of two things - a procedural issue they gave him credit for or he convinced the arbitrator this truly was an accidental ingestion. The first is very unlikely since baseball has cleared up the collection process and no one has indicated that is a reason (and in the past, players have been fast to do that). So that evidence clearly points to the latter. Which of course doesn't mean that Pineda didn't pull a fast one on the arbitrator. Though that seems unlikely since no one else has been able to.

If Pineda wants the benefit of the doubt that the arbitrators found evidence that he wasn't masking, rather than reducing the suspension based on a procedural technicality, then he can release the transcripts of the appeal hearing.

 

If he doesn't want to do that, fine that's his right, but that means he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from me.

Until he does, a procedural technicality is equally as likely as evidence that he wasn't masking to me.

 

I mean, explain to me how you prove a negative (I didn't take PED's) in the first place? You can't, it's not possible.

You can fail to prove he did, but it's impossible to prove he didn't.

[nicksaviking]

 

But what is his motive for not going to the team trainers if he legitimately just wanted to lose weight? That's what I can't get past.
And it's not just "stupidity". He knows the team has professional trainers. He knows the trainers can clear any supplements.
Those are two things he knows. He doesn't need any intelligence to know those two things.

So, knowing those two things, what is his motivation for going to a "buddy" rather than the team trainers?

 

I don't know, and I don't really care since it's over and done with, but IF he spent his offseason in the DR, which most DR players seem to do, my guess would be he just picked it up there and had been popping those pills regularly after the team asked him to lose weight over the winter, as teams are wont to do with their larger players. I doubt the trainers are hanging out in Santo Domingo too often.

 

I wouldn't advocate for keeping players from their home towns, but it sure would be nice if the Twins (and other teams) could find a compelling way to have their players and staff from all levels of the organization to call Ft Myers their winter home.

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't know, and I don't really care since it's over and done with, but IF he spent his offseason in the DR, which most DR players seem to do, my guess would be he just picked it up there and had been popping those pills regularly after the team asked him to lose weight over the winter, as teams are wont to do with their larger players.

 

I wouldn't advocate for keeping players from their home towns, but it sure would be nice if the Twins (and other teams) could find a compelling way to have their players and staff from all levels of the organization to call Ft Myers their winter home.

He still had a motivation to decide not to call the team trainers and say is this safe to take?

 

He still had a motivation to decide not to go to the team trainers for a weight loss plan once he arrived in Spring Training.

 

Again, these are things he knows. So, he made a conscious decision to not consult team trainers. He had some motivation for making that decision.

 

It may not matter to you, that's fine, to some of us it does.

I'm tired of all these players claiming it was some innocent mistake, or they didn't know what they were taking, or whatever.

Just be a man and step up and admit your mistake. I would respect that. The excuses I can't respect.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

But what is his motive for not going to the team trainers if he legitimately just wanted to lose weight? That's what I can't get past.
And it's not just "stupidity". He knows the team has professional trainers. He knows the trainers can clear any supplements.
Those are two things he knows. He doesn't need any intelligence to know those two things.

So, knowing those two things, what is his motivation for going to a "buddy" rather than the team trainers?

 

1. Never underestimate stupidity. Especially athletic stupidity.

 

2. I think characterizing this as a buddy might be presumptuous. He may have been getting supplements from this source for years. This may be his trainer in the DR. It stands to reason that that person may not have been paying as close attention to the list as team trainers would.

 

3. This may also be a case of bad communication. Maybe he asked a team trainer for something and they said they thought it was a bad idea - diet and exercise will deal with this. If Pineda didn't want to put in that kind of effort, maybe he went to someone else he thought he could trust. 

 

This is all speculative of course but so is assuming the other way. The point is that you're absolutely right that its really dumb not to use the resources at hand but not using them isn't necessarily indicative of anything insidious.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

He still had a motivation to decide not to call the team trainers and say is this safe to take?

He still had a motivation to decide not to go to the team trainers for a weight loss plan once he arrived in Spring Training.

Again, these are things he knows. So, he made a conscious decision to not consult team trainers. He had some motivation for making that decision.

It may not matter to you, that's fine, to some of us it does.
I'm tired of all these players claiming it was some innocent mistake, or they didn't know what they were taking, or whatever.
Just be a man and step up and admit your mistake. I would respect that. The excuses I can't respect.

 

Does the arbitrator reducing it mean nothing in your opinion? I'd be right up there with you about this except for that. That always gives me pause. Pretty rare to have them reduce a suspension.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

 

If Pineda wants the benefit of the doubt that the arbitrators found evidence that he wasn't masking, rather than reducing the suspension based on a procedural technicality, then he can release the transcripts of the appeal hearing.

If he doesn't want to do that, fine that's his right, but that means he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from me.
Until he does, a procedural technicality is equally as likely as evidence that he wasn't masking to me.

I mean, explain to me how you prove a negative (I didn't take PED's) in the first place? You can't, it's not possible.
You can fail to prove he did, but it's impossible to prove he didn't.

 

I don't think the procedural aspect is equally as likely. In the past when there have been procedural issues, its been talked about publicly. Its also not usually something where the player admits they were dumb and took something - they claim that it never happened and the process is lying. Its also important to note that baseball went through the Braun affair and revamped its collection system to cut out any potential for litigation on that front. So I would say that it is highly unlikely this was a procedural reduction. For whatever reason, the arbitrator bought that there was no PED intentions.

 

I would be surprised if Pineda has the ability to release transcripts. If the league is going to guarantee that they'll seal those proceedings, there's no way they'll let players release transcripts when it suits them. I'd bet that the legal language means that neither side can leak it.

 

That said, there is a need for transparency. I'm not sure how to balance the player's right to privacy with the desire for fans to know though, that's a big issue.