Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Front Page: Michael Pineda Suspended 60 Games For Banned Substance

michael pineda
  • Please log in to reply
248 replies to this topic

#241 Only Here in Negative

Only Here in Negative

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 150 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 08:51 PM

 

That timeline doesn't make it any less suspicious. Whether he's taking the drug early season, mid season, or at the end, they all have benefits. 

 

Neither if more likely than the other because we've heard nothing about why the suspension was reduced. All the protocol in the world can't remove human error, and that assuming it was even human error and not an issue with the protocol itself. If he's masking, it'd be in his best interest not to reveal that the suspension was reduced due to a technical issue. It also wouldn't jive with the explanation he gave for the drug use, which lets be honest isn't the most sound or convincing story.  

 

This was in response to people upset that he screwed the Twins when they were on the cusp of the playoffs. That just isn't true based on timeline. 


#242 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,872 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 01:10 PM

 

This was in response to people upset that he screwed the Twins when they were on the cusp of the playoffs. That just isn't true based on timeline. 

They might not have a division lead without him pitching through July and August. He definitely screwed the team, but not in that way. 


#243 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Member
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 01:23 PM

This was in response to people upset that he screwed the Twins when they were on the cusp of the playoffs. That just isn't true based on timeline.


That doesn’t make it better. If he didn’t tell Falvine that he tested positive when they had a chance to do something about it (before July 31) that suggests to me that he cared more about himself than his team.
  • Only Here in Negative likes this

#244 Only Here in Negative

Only Here in Negative

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 150 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 03:57 PM

 

That doesn’t make it better. If he didn’t tell Falvine that he tested positive when they had a chance to do something about it (before July 31) that suggests to me that he cared more about himself than his team.

 

That's fair. I wonder what the agreement between league and player says about that. It would seem to be in the best interest of teams to be included but that makes leaks probable. Also hard to see how the team wouldn't know about the investigation - the league would talk to the trainers right? Interesting angle though.


#245 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Member
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 05:12 PM

That's fair. I wonder what the agreement between league and player says about that. It would seem to be in the best interest of teams to be included but that makes leaks probable. Also hard to see how the team wouldn't know about the investigation - the league would talk to the trainers right? Interesting angle though.


I would presume the language says that teams don’t need to be notified until MLB does so. However, I doubt there is a prohibition of a player doing so. As for leaks, that is dealt with easily enough by imposing a hefty fine if word leaks out. By hefty I’m talking 7 figures. Presumably, the player would have no reason to leak it.

#246 Only Here in Negative

Only Here in Negative

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 150 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 07:00 AM

 

 

I would presume the language says that teams don’t need to be notified until MLB does so. However, I doubt there is a prohibition of a player doing so. As for leaks, that is dealt with easily enough by imposing a hefty fine if word leaks out. By hefty I’m talking 7 figures. Presumably, the player would have no reason to leak it.

 

1.) How often would you be able to prove a leak? Especially with 7 figures on the line. All it takes is an intern seeing the paperwork or overhearing a conversation. Or an exec's kid who is chatty at school. Seems hard to punish that severely - along with the optics of fining someone for outing a cheater.

 

2.) Players like Braun leaked it because it fit their narrative (false in Braun's case - he really should've been hated more for what he did). So I think it would be tough to say that players would never leak it, sometimes it might make sense to get out in front of the PR.

 

3.) Overall, I think we can all agree that this process needs more transparency. If there's a reduction, they need to give some detail so fans can understand what happened. Our view of Pineda could be markedly different based on why that was reduced and we can only speculate now. And that timeline seems important too.


#247 stringer bell

stringer bell

    In the Twilight of a Mediocre Career

  • Moderator
  • 9,271 posts
  • LocationElgin, MN

Posted 19 September 2019 - 07:38 AM

 

Yeah, I guess I just see the "there was a procedural issue" in the same "you're reaching" light that you see "he didn't tell the trainers what he was taking for benign reasons". It just seems crazy that a well-oiled machine that depends on being consistent (and has experienced the PR nightmare of inconsistency) is likely to be to blame. And that the MLBPA wouldn't be going crazy in public if it had.

It's been a while, but in labor-management disciplinary situations that I have been involved in, a procedural error would invalidate everything. 

 

Secondly, if there were a procedural error, wouldn't MLB say that the suspension was reduced for that reason? 

  • Only Here in Negative likes this

#248 insagt1

insagt1

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 309 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:17 AM

I also feel some are making too much of an 80 game suspension being reduced to 60. If it was that innocent a 'mistake', there would be no suspension. If it was reduced to say 20 games, different story.

 

For me it still remains a very poor lapse in judgement by a valuable pitcher to a team fighting for a pennant and in need of said pitcher. Why he would jeopardize his season and throw his teammates under the bus at this critical time is just unforgivable. These guys aren't that 'stupid'...they know exactly what they are doing and if they don't, they have a ton of resources at their fingertips to check before ingesting.

 

We can't ever prove 'intent' and certainly the 'truth' is so deeply hidden in murky waters, the debate could rage on.What is left is our most effective starter crapped the bed and the team, not him, is the big loser.


#249 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 7,875 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 10:33 AM

I also feel some are making too much of an 80 game suspension being reduced to 60. If it was that innocent a 'mistake', there would be no suspension. If it was reduced to say 20 games, different story.

For me it still remains a very poor lapse in judgement by a valuable pitcher to a team fighting for a pennant and in need of said pitcher. Why he would jeopardize his season and throw his teammates under the bus at this critical time is just unforgivable. These guys aren't that 'stupid'...they know exactly what they are doing and if they don't, they have a ton of resources at their fingertips to check before ingesting.

We can't ever prove 'intent' and certainly the 'truth' is so deeply hidden in murky waters, the debate could rage on. What is left is our most effective starter crapped the bed and the team, not him, is the big loser.


Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe those were options for the arbitrator.

I believe their two options under the CBA is to either let the 80 games stand, or reduce it to 60 games.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: michael pineda