Only Here in Negative

I legitimately did! My mother and cousin are huge Twins fans who tend towards despair. I spent Friday evening emailing and texting with both of them about how the Twins were going to sweep this weekend (not just the doubleheader). Every time this team looks like its down, it claws back. And with a mostly functional lineup, I thought they'd light up Clevinger (not exactly what happened but close enough) while the pen would hold serve. I also predicted that the Vikings would stomp the Packers and this would be the greatest MN sports weekend since Game 163 weekend (which ended with Favre stomping the Pack on MNF). So let's hope I'm a seer!

Also, I'm not spinning anything, that's kind of an insulting thing to say. Every post I use words like MAY or COULD and acknowledge that we can't know for sure. The fun of this is trying to read between the lines. I've said it before, I totally get someone who says "I don't believe these guys ever, he's guilty." I may personally think that they're being reactionary and refusing to consider any other possibilities but I get the concept and acknowledge that they may be 100% right. I just think its worth thinking a bit more critically about this and believe that there are some legitimate reasons to consider the possibility that Pineda wasn't juicing (namely, the reduction).

Maybe another agree to disagree moment since you're set in stone on this but I'll take one more shot. The use of PEDs from now and 2012 can be compared - they're generally the same substances and generally used the same way. So comparing A-Rod and Pineda's use of PEDs, valid. You can't compare the procedural process. It underwent significant changes in 2014. Before that, it was largely commissioner's discretion and it was wildly inconsistent. There were lots of reductions and negotiations because there was no standard. The commissioner threw the book at guys (often based on how big a star they were - Selig was the hypocritical worst), the players argued back, and the arbitrator often found something in the middle - often as a result of direct negotiation between league and player's agent (e.g. Braun, A-Rod). After 2014, there were set punishments and set procedures that delineated what could reduce a suspension and what couldn't. You can't compare A-Rod's processing for PED violations with Pineda's - they're being tried under two different systems. A-Rod having his suspension reduced is utterly and completely irrelevant to any attempt to decipher Pineda's reduction. I'm not sure how that's something that we can even debate, it seems crystal clear. They weren't processed under the same rules. Chief pointed out Mondesi Jr. as a guy who was a relevant comparison - he was processed under the current rules.

Your skepticism is fine. But the facts are the facts and he didn't get busted for anything he was taking right now. This positive test was before the All-Star break and reflects on activity from the beginning of the year. That may still not convince you but we should be accurate. Seems like an agree to disagree moment.

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.

You can keep saying something over and over again but that doesn't make it relevant. No one has said "Diuretics = diet pills", they've said that diuretics are often used in diet pills. A pill can contain more than one substance mixed together. Many weight loss supplements, particularly those that the FDA doesn't look at, combine diuretics with other weight loss strategies like appetite suppression. And its not like diuretics leave you incredible dehydrated. If you take them and don't drink any water, sure. But if you're an athlete and are consuming water and other liquids while performing, with an emphasis by team trainers towards hydrating on hot days, there would be minimal effect. That may lessen the impact of the diuretic but Pineda claims he didn't know it had the diuretic so that wouldn't stop him from taking it if he thought it was working in other ways. Or if he thought that it worked on his off days when he wasn't working much,.

But they're not relevant. This would be like if you were convicted on drug charges and we got to sentencing, where the prosecution and defense make recommendations for jail time based on prior cases. If I'm the prosecutor and I recommend death because that's how they handle it in Malaysia, that's an entirely different legal procedure and is irrelevant. Same thing if your attorney brought up cases in the Netherlands where many drugs are legal. A-Rod and Alfonso are both from a prior enforcement age and are relatively irrelevant. The commissioner had broad powers to impose suspensions and arbitrators were much more involved in determining if these were too Draconian. That's why they made a new agreement that codified the process - the league got a process that wasn't subject to legal issues and the players got a process that was even and wasn't "How much in the public eye is the player". We have to compare it to cases since 2014. The only relevant one is the Mondesi one that Chief pointed out. That one was due to reasonable proof there was no PED use. Still can't use the agent so still a suspension, but lessened. And notably, the postseason ban is lifted. That shows something.

This appears too roundabout to continue going back and forth. I, with many others, have suggested that the reduction may imply that there was evidence of no PED use. You, along with many others, have suggested that any use of masking agents is evidence of PED use and the reduction is due to a procedural issue. Neither of those is provable, though I think the first is more likely give the way baseball closed procedural loopholes in the collection process. I will say one other thing: your concept of how masking agents work is not correct. They don't flush the PEDs out of the system or make them disappear. They basically dilute the amounts so they are within the range of normal presence in the body. There would still be larger-than-normal amounts of the PED substance in the body, just within range of what a human could reasonably have in a natural way. If you tested someone and they had a masking agent but also extremely low levels of the PED substance, you could reasonable assume that they were unlikely to be using PEDs. Not saying that's what happened with Pineda, just refuting the concept that there's no way to know if PED use was taking place.

We can't prove either side of this, I'm not sure why you're so focused on a meaningless prove a negative thing. No one is going for proof. This is a matter of interpretation unless they release transcripts (and even then, its still not concrete). Each team will make a judgment about intent when he becomes a free agent. Each fan will make a judgment when he comes back to boo, cheer, or yawn. That said, there's no evidence for a procedural error. None. The system has been extensively retooled and the only other reduction was based on intent, not procedure. No one involved has invoked procedural problems, which they regularly did when those were present. By contrast, Pineda and the Twins have indicated that it was due to a lack of intent defense. You can doubt the veracity of that defense (readily) but there's no indication that it was a procedural matter. At this time. People have provided reasonable ways to prove a lack of intent. They have his urine, they can test for trace amounts of illicit substances. Diuretics and masking agents don't erase the presence of those chemicals, they just take them below the limits of testing (since PED use is about the amount of a substance in you, not the presence of naturally occurring levels). There may be a scarcity of the substances it would mask that indicate that the supplement wasn't being used to hide anything. They may also have provided a bottle from Pineda's locker and a history of openly using the supplement that indicates he wasn't hiding anything. Taking it openly would influence me as an arbitrator. They also may have interviewed the buddy and gotten his story about where the mistake was made (that would be significantly less influential to me but taken with other factors, maybe its useful?) Thoughts?

I've been dinged for getting frustrated at people whose history regarding Joe Mauer was as ridiculous as Channing's with Falvine. There need to be universal standards on these things. It isn't having pushback, its the tone. Or so I've been told.

What? That post wasn't trolling. In a post about people who might get poached from the Twins, he indicated he hoped Falvine would get poached. That's not trolling whatsoever. It may be a dumb opinion but it was on topic and didn't belittle anyone. As someone with four warning points, I can't believe that you're defending yourself on this. It was clearly over the top coming back. I thought that before I saw the comment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.