Pineda’s Suspension Is a Serious Blow to the Twins
After frittering away what was once an 11 1/2-game lead over the Indians, the Twins have reestablished firm control of the AL Central race, but this weekend, their hopes to play deep into October took a hit when Michael Pineda was suspended for 60 games for violating MLB’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program. Pineda tested positive for hydrochlorothiazide, a diuretic on the league’s banned substances list, and while his suspension was reduced from the standard 80 games upon appeal, he won’t be available for the playoffs, making this one of the most impactful recent Joint Drug suspensions.
Pineda’s suspension was announced amid a three-game series between the division rivals. On Friday night, he held the Indians to one run over six innings while striking out a season-high 10; he left the game carrying a 2-1 lead, but the Indians tied the game in the eighth and won 6-2 in 11 innings. The next day, MLB announced the suspension, and while a fired-up Twins team rallied late to win 5-3 and cut the team’s magic number to clinch the division to 14, they lost the rubber match on Sunday, 5-2.
In a statement released by the Major League Baseball Players Association, 30-year-old Pineda said in part:
“I mistakenly took a medication that was given to me by a close acquaintance, who obtained it over-the-counter and assured me it would safely help me manage my weight. I ingested a few of these pills without the consent of the Twins’ training staff. Testing revealed trace elements of a substance called Hydrochlorothiazide, which is a banned diuretic under baseball’s testing program.”
Hydrochlorothiazide is a medication used to treat high blood pressure and fluid retention (edema) by producing more urine, which helps the body get rid of excess sodium and water. It’s on the list of banned substances because it is often abused as a masking agent, which helps to to conceal the use of anabolic steroids by reducing their concentration in urine due to the increase in volume.
In the process of appealing his suspension, Pineda was able to present evidence that convinced an independent arbitrator that he was not using the drug as a masking agent, leading the arbitrator to invoke what’s called the mitigation provision of the Joint Drug Agreement between MLB and the MLBPA. Via MLB.com’s Do-Hyoung Park, the provision in question is Section 8.B.4 of the JDA, by which an arbitrator can reduce a suspension “if a player proves by clear and convincing evidence that he bears no significant fault or negligence for the presence of the Performance Enhancing Substance in his test result.”
While the Athletic’s Dan Hayes reported that this was the “first time in the history of MLB’s drug program the mitigation provision has been used,” it would appear that the 2016 suspension of Adalberto Mondesi (known at the time as Raul Mondesi Jr.) did so as well, albeit without anybody using the phrase “mitigation provision.” Mondesi tested positive for the banned substance Clenbuterol but had his suspension reduced from 80 games to 50 games when he was able to show that a cold medication that he had taken contained the substance. While players suspended under the JDA have been ineligible for postseason play since 2014, MLB.com’s Jesse Sanchez reported that per a league source, Mondesi would be eligible if the Royals — who at that time were the reigning world champions — qualified, which they did not. As Park noted, via the mitigation provision, a player who has his suspension reduced also retains his postseason eligibility. That’s a moot point for Pineda, as his suspension will still be in effect, but had the decision come early enough in the season for the suspension to run its course, he could have participated.
The suspension is hardly a moot point for the Twins. Pineda, who did not pitch in the majors last year while recovering from July 2017 Tommy John surgery, has posted a 4.01 ERA and 4.02 FIP (86 ERA- and 87 FIP-) in 146 innings en route to 2.6 WAR. That last figure is fourth on the team behind Jake Odorizzi (3.7), José Berríos (3.6), and Kyle Gibson (2.9), but Pineda has been the best of the bunch since early June, and appeared well on his way to garnering a substantial deal in free agency this winter (he’ll now miss the first 39 games of next season, nearly one-quarter of the schedule). Reprising a table I built for my August 13 piece on the AL Central race, published on the only day since April 9 that the team was out of first place:
| Pitcher | Split | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Odorizzi | Through 6/2 | 64.1 | 1.96 | 2.87 | 28.0% | 8.4% | 2.2 |
| Since | 89.0 | 4.55 | 3.84 | 26.2% | 8.1% | 1.5 | |
| >José Berríos | Through 6/2 | 77.0 | 3.27 | 3.77 | 22.6% | 4.4% | 1.9 |
| Since | 97.0 | 4.18 | 4.14 | 23.1% | 7.4% | 1.7 | |
| Kyle Gibson | Through 6/2 | 62.1 | 3.75 | 3.99 | 24.1% | 5.8% | 1.3 |
| Since | 87.0 | 5.17 | 4.09 | 21.6% | 7.8% | 1.7 | |
| Martín Pérez | Through 6/2 | 52.1 | 3.10 | 3.81 | 21.8% | 8.8% | 1.2 |
| Since | 87.0 | 5.48 | 5.24 | 15.9% | 8.5% | 0.5 | |
| Michael Pineda | Through 6/2 | 59.0 | 5.34 | 5.27 | 20.3% | 4.5% | 0.3 |
| Since | 87.0 | 3.10 | 3.18 | 25.4% | 4.8% | 2.4 |
June 2 was the day that the Twins’ AL Central lead over the Indians peaked at 11 1/2 games. As you can see, since that point — during which the team has gone 48-37 (.565), compared to 40-18 (.690) prior — Pineda owns the rotation’s best ERA, FIP, walk rate, and WAR, and the second-best strikeout rate. Since the All-Star break, he’s a close second on the staff in FIP and WAR behind Odorizzi (3.55 and 1.3 to 3.47 and 1.5) with by far the better ERA (3.04 to 4.30).
The loss of Pineda highlights the Twins’ failure to land a rotation upgrade ahead of the July 31 trade deadline. As noted in the aforementioned piece, they pursued the likes of Trevor Bauer, Zack Greinke, Marcus Stroman, and Noah Syndergaard but were either rebuffed or found the price too steep. For example, the Blue Jays reportedly asked for shortstop Royce Lewis or right fielder Alex Kirilloff, the team’s top two prospects, for Stroman, while the Mets wanted both and also asked for Byron Buxton for a potential Syndergaard deal. Per the Star-Tribune‘s La Velle E. Neal III, while Pineda might have known of the positive test before the July 31 deadline, the Twins did not:
The process of being informed of a positive test, appealing the results and then receiving the arbitrator’s decision can take around 30-45 days, meaning Pineda might have been informed before the July 31 trade deadline that he tested positive. The team, however, is the last to know. The Twins were not informed Pineda had failed a test until early Friday evening. So a handful of Twins officials knew Friday that Pineda was making his last start of 2019.
Pineda’s suspension comes at a time that Gibson is on the injured list due to ulcerative colitis, which had caused him to lose 10 pounds over a month and a half, though he’s expected to return this coming Thursday, when he’s scheduled to start against the Nationals. The Twins filled the two turns he’s missed in with opener Randy Dobnak. On September 3 against the Red Sox, Dobnak, a 24-year-old rookie righty, threw one scoreless inning before yielding to Lewis Thorpe, a 23-year-old rookie lefty who was cuffed for three runs in 3.1 innings. On Sunday against the Indians, Dobnak allowed two runs in two innings before Devin Smeltzer, a 24-year-old rookie lefty, took over and allowed two more runs in four innings.
Twins manager Rocco Baldelli has not offered specifics for how he plans to handle Pineda’s absence, but that trio of rookies, who all have starting experience, figure to be in the mix. Of the trio, Smeltzer, who is 23rd on the team’s prospect list, has thrown the most innings for the big club (36, with a 4.00 ERA and 4.63 FIP). Thorpe, the most highly-regarded prospect of the trio (14th on the team’s list), has the highest WAR (0.5 in 18.2 innings, thanks to a 2.68 FIP that stands in marked contrast to his 5.30 ERA), while Dobnak has the lowest FIP and ERA (1.64 and 2.12, albeit in just 11 innings). While Perez has made four solid starts out of his last five, his struggles for most of the summer mean that he’s probably not guaranteed a postseason start just yet, particularly given his problems against righties; here it’s worth noting that Astros righties have pummeled lefties for a 135 wRC+, second among AL teams behind only the Twins (137), with the Yankees (121) third. Gulp.
In terms of its impact on a playoff-bound team, the closest parallel for Pineda’s suspension is probably that of Bartolo Colon, who tested positive for testosterone while pitching for the A’s in 2012. The then-40-year-old righty was in the second year of his post-injury comeback; he had pitched to a 3.43 ERA and 3.82 FIP in 152.1 innings before his 50-game suspension was handed down on August 22, 2012. His 2.6 WAR was a close second on the team at the time. When the A’s faced the Tigers in the Division Series, their starters — Jarrod Parker twice, and Brett Anderson, A.J. Griffin, and Tommy Milone once each — pitched well, allowing just 10 runs (nine earned) in 29.2 innings, but Parker was touched for four runs in six innings in Game 5, and the A’s went down in defeat.
We’ll never know whether Colon’s presence would have changed the course of that series, and likewise, how far these Twins could have gone with Pineda. For what it’s worth, via our playoff odds, the team’s chances of winning the World Series dropped from 8.4% at the end of Friday to 7.6% at the end of Saturday despite their victory. Projected to finish with 99 wins, they’re still a force to be reckoned with, and hardly alone among AL contenders in facing postseason rotation uncertainty (hello, Yankees). Nonetheless, this is the kind of bad break that no team in pursuit of a championship wants, and if the Twins make another first-round exit — something they’ve done in each of their last five Division Series appearances dating back to 2003 — Pineda’s suspension will cast a long shadow.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
Cheater…..get him out of here.
Didn’t-read-the-articler…….trade him to the Marlins.
There are only two relevant facts:
1) Hydrochlorothiazide is on publicly available lists of banned substances. Here’s one such list. http://www.mlbplayers.com/pdf9/5214025.pdf
2) Pineda has admitted to having the banned substance and knowingly taking it.
Thus, Pineda is objectively a cheater. In addition, and for the public’s purposes because:
1) Whether Pineda knew the substance was banned is irrelevant, and an indication of the bankruptcy of such an argument. It is impossible to prove a negative. (It is also implausible in the context)
2) The anonymous arbiter’s judgment is irrelevant. There is no publicly available “evidence”. Even the “arbiter” is anonymous. The “clear and convincing” legal standard is a farce, as a result, because this “court” is a fake – it has no legal sanction – because the entire process is just a front for the MLB’s “in-house” department.
I’ll say it again – while the article and MLB try to drape Pineda’s excuse with some kind of legal legitimacy (it’s actually just a part of the MLB’s and the media’s PR apparatus), the “arbiter” is just a PR man – end of story.
In a real court of law, there would be publicly available documents, discovery, affidavits, and entering of ACTUAL EVIDENCE into the PUBLIC RECORD except with PUBLICLY STATED reasons for secrecy like witnesses under credible threats of death.
Pineda’s case does not comport with the necessity of secrecy even in a real court of law. The reasons for secrecy have to do with credibility of the “court/arbiter” (or the lack thereof) – such as saving Pineda and the MLB embarrassment.
Here, the “evidence” is secret.
In a kangaroo court.
Under a secret arbiter.
With no accountability except to the MLB and its players ….
….and so it’s not surprising that these kinds of courts always find in favor of the MLB and players best interests, and NOT in the fans – let alone the public’s – best interests.
Will Pineda’s suspension into 2020 not be reduced by the number of postseason games he misses? Do those not count?
They shouldn’t, as salary is based on regular-season games.
Maybe I missed it, but how does one prove they took a banned substance unknowingly? Seems like all you need to do is determine which OTC medications contain it, then buy those medications on a regular basis and save the receipts.
I’m also surprised this excuse would be accepted when it’s common knowledge that players are supposed to get team approval for ALL medications to avoid these situations.
My guess is if he did get if from a friend OTC, it wasn’t here in the states. Either that or he is a liar. Hydrochlorothiazide is a prescription drug. If he did get it here in the states OTC then I would expect an FDA investigation given the serious implications of this drug being consumed by the public unknowingly.
Given that the stuff that has been stated notes that the over-the-counter drug in question is said to contain trace amounts of Hydrochloro-whatever, that is probably why it was OTC, and also probably why the arbiter accepted his explanation—the test only revealed trace amount, not enough to mask anything.
The amount in Pineda’s system doesn’t tell you anything, as he could have taken the drug a long time–relative to it’s half-life in the body–prior to testing (depending on the sensitivity of the test, the drug might be undetectable after about 3-4 days). Athletes are frequently suspended for testing positive for some substance that at the time it’s detected isn’t present in large enough amounts to have a benefit. An example would be cyclist Alberto Contador and his clenbuterol positive in the Tour de France 2010. The EPO test doesn’t even tell you how much of the synthetic peptide is in the body.
That is true, but I have no idea what the half-life of this drug is. Given that arbiters very, very rarely grant this exception to go below 80 games, I imagine there was pretty good evidence supporting his claim beyond what could be easily faked—such as two tests in quick succession relative to the half-life of this drug with the first showing none and the second a trace amount. I have no idea what it was, but one can guess that it was fairly convincing evidence given the burden of proof to show it.
The half-life is 6-15 hours. I think he just showed proof of purchase of the tainted supplement. Athletes are not usually tested twice in succession without cause. If a first test showed no evidence of the drug, there would be no point in testing again. Even if the first test was ambiguous, for that drug or another, a second test a few days later would be even less likely to be positive.
Her’s an example of an athlete who appealed a diuretic positive and got a no significant fault decision like Pineda’s:
Rugby player Ashley Johnson tested positive for hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic) in 2018. It was accepted that the ADRV came about after he ingested some of his wife’s fat-burning pills. Mr Johnson had confused his wife’s pills with his own supplement (which was WADA-certified), the two products having been kept in very similar containers laid out on a worktop in the couple’s kitchen.
The Panel again considered the objective standard first. The Panel recognised that “this arrangement [of different pills in similar boxes in close proximity] ran an obvious risk that some kind of muddle would occur”. The Panel went on to note that his wife’s pills were “bought over the internet from an unidentified or unspecified producer… All sensible people (and certainly every informed and reasonable sportsperson) would regard such a product as exactly the sort of thing to avoid.”
In considering the subjective standard, the Panel took into consideration some of Mr Johnson’s personal circumstances, namely the “generally chaotic circumstances in which the family breakfasted” , although it is clear that these had comparatively little impact on the decision. The Panel stated that “chaotic circumstances are hardly an excuse: the more chaotic the circumstance is, the greater the risk that pills might get mixed up”. The Panel concluded that Mr Johnson’s Fault was not significant and accordingly imposed a period of six months’ Ineligibility.
https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/sport/2018/no-significant-fault–an-assessment-of-anti-doping-case-law/
These assays have lower limits. They don’t report positive for the tiniest little traces. The drug has a half life of 8 – 15 hours and is ONLY available with a prescription. A positive test means he took a pharmacologic dose within a day (2 at the most) of his test. you don’t get a positive test from taking a supplement purchaded in the US with trace amounts of the drug. It just doesn’t happen.
He cheated. Like most explanations from athletes caught cheating, his doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27611956
Here’s a case where an athlete claimed to have ingested CTZ in an analgesic pill. The pill contained 2.5 ug of the drug, whereas 25-100 mg is the usual dose. In a lab study, the drug could be detected in the urine at 1 ng/ml up to about 22 hour following ingestion of the pill. On this basis, it was recommended that urinary levels of > 200 ng/ml should not be reported as a positive, but simply for informational purposes only. This classification is known as a specified substance, and is applied, e.g., for the asthma medication salbutamol, which athletes are allowed to take up to certain amounts, and for which there is an allowed maximum urinary concentration.
I don’t think this recommendation has been followed yet, but for someone taking a 25-100 mg dose, it would require several weeks for urinary levels to fall below 1 ng/ml, and this is just assuming a single dose. Usually when used for doping, such drugs are taken repeatedly.
However, I also want to add that CTZ is used not only as a masking agent, but as a weight loss drug, so the fact that there is no proof that it was used as a masking agent doesn’t by itself mean it couldn’t have performance-enhancing effects. Clenbuterol is also used as a weight loss drug, and is also prohibited by WADA. In some sports, where power/weight is critical, like boxing and cycling, banned drugs are frequently used for rapid weight loss.
Apparently CTZ has now been classified as a specified substance, opening the door to appeals based on urinary levels. Here’s another case where the athlete got off completely (no fault):
https://www.usada.org/chelsea-mcclammer-accepts-finding-of-no-fault/
But according to a paper published last year, there is no urinary level maximum. All detectable amounts are reported as adverse analytical findings, and it’s up to the athlete to argue it resulted from a contaminant:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/dta.2499
I have a prescription for Hydrochlorothiazide. I got it when my wife insisted that I ask the doctor for something to control my blood pressure, which I relayed to my doctor, who noted that I do not have any blood pressure problems, and don’t need blood pressure medication. He gave me the prescription just so I could have something to show my wife to ease her concerns, since he said it was a harmless medication that wouldn’t really change much of anything one way or another.
We’ll never be privy to what went on in that hearing, because the entire process is confidential, and it’s gonna be pretty obvious if Big Mike starts publishing “How to Sort of Beat a Positive Test” pamphlets under an assumed name.
If you tried that kind of stunt, the receipts would make it clear that the medications were purchased after the positive test. Receipts (at least in the U.S.) always include the date of purchase.
That’s why you start buying when you start using
The weight you would have lost was superficial water weight, dummy. You have access to the best medical staff, nutritionists, and athletic trainers. Instead you choose someone offering magic beans.
The Giants lost Melky Cabrera to a PED suspension in 2012. As I recall, he was eligible to return sometime during the postseason, but the Giants declined to have him back, and went on to win the WS, anyway.
Yes. I meant to mention it within the text, albeit as an aside. The comparison to Colon, a starting pitcher, is the more apt one in this instance.
Another comparison is Cano, who also tested positive for a diuretic, but got the full 80 games. He did manage to return before the end of the season, but his absence obviously didn’t help whatever playoff aspirations the Ms had.
Melky also added to his woes by having his agent run a batshit scheme to fake an online product for him to claim to have bought unknowingly.
https://deadspin.com/melky-cabreras-fake-website-sent-mlb-investigators-all-5936526/amp
80 games for deliberate cheating and 60 games for an honest mistake? I know you still want to deter stupid mistakes, but seems like a lesser penalty would still do that.
Further, it’s 60 games for an adjudicated honest mistake about a masking agent. Not even a substance that in and of itself provides a theoretical performance benefit.
Same with Cano, who got the full 80 games. But proof of performance enhancement is not a criterion. That’s why athletes, in other sports, anyway, can be suspended for missing scheduled tests, under the whereabouts clause. Missing a test by itself does not prove a performance benefit, either.
Oh I understand and I agree. But if the point of having an arbitrator is to allow for mercy, as it were, around the edges, then I would expect that secondary violations such as masking agents or missed tests … if determined to be well and truly accidental … could be reduced further than for accidental ingestion of actual PEDs. The theory being that even an accidental ingestion of a PED still provides an unfair benefit, and is thus worse than an accidental ingestion of a masking agent that provides no real benefit.
As the saying goes, athletes are responsible for what they put into their bodies. It’s a mistake like, officer I didn’t realize I was going over the speed limit, is a mistake. That’s why the wording is “no significant fault or negligence.” If the word “significant” is dropped, then the athlete gets off completely. An example might be if he tested positive for clenbuterol, and could convince the authorities that it came from tainted meat–though there has been much publicity about that in recent years, to the extent that athletes are increasingly expected to be careful about eating meat in certain countries.
I’m guessing the penalty is still high because the authorities don’t really know if this was intentional or not. Providing an explanation is not the same as proof of how the substance got into his body. As someone upthread pointed out, athletes have been known to buy substances contaminated with certain drugs of abuse, just so they will have an excuse if they test positive for that drug.
I have to agree here. If the penalty was light in these situations, it would happen over and over again and become a joke. When you say that a player is responsible for everything he puts in his body, you have to back it up.
It would still be an effective deterrent if it were, say, a 20 game suspension. Nobody wants to miss that much time. Besides the blow to your salary and your team’s chances of winning, that’s still long enough to have a good chance of messing up your timing and/or mechanics.
Basically,a very hefty penalty,for a water pill.
“Mondesi tested positive for the banned substance Clenbuterol but had his suspension reduced from 80 games to 50 games when he was able to show that a cold medication that he had taken contained the substance. ”
This is ridiculous. Why wasn’t it reduced to 0 games?
Because the rule is very clear that athletes are responsible for everything they put in their bodies. If this got a zero game suspension, it would lead to a million cases where it would be impossible to tell who is telling the truth and who is cheating and lying about it.
It’s one thing if they’re using PEDs proper, but for an accidentally ingested masking agent, I’m not sure what the point is. The reason athletes are suspended for masking agents in the first place is the assumption that they’re being used to cover for PEDs on tests, and even if PEDs proper didn’t show up, it’s assumed they’re present.
But if the masking agent is acknowledged as a mistake, then what is being punished, exactly? Negligence? 50 games seems excessive for that, and I’m not of the opinion that it’s reasonable for a person to know every single substance that goes into their body.
Just because an athlete says it was a mistake, doesn’t mean it was. Show me the athlete who tests positive for anything, and immediately cops to it.
When you are being paid millions of dollars a year, it’s not too much to check the label on anything you consume. Athletes sometimes get off by providing evidence that the drug was not supposed to be in the medicine or supplement, but if it’s clearly labelled as such, there’s no excuse.
Tough room…the Twins did not “fritter away” their lead in the Central, they went 33-29 (86 win pace) while Cleveland went 43-17 (116 win pace) to lose their division lead. I mean, sure Minnesota could have kept up their 112 (!) win pace when they had a 11.5 game lead, but it’s not like they tanked it.
If Pineda was serious about his weight loss, he should have asked Gibson for some of his ulcerative colitis.
“Hey, Kyle, can you just like…shit in this bag for me? Uh, no reason.”
Personally, I don’t care either way about drug testing. If athletes want to potentially ruin themselves in pursuit of money, well…they’re adults. That said, I can understand why teams would want stringent testing, given their multi-million-dollar investments.
What I find ridiculous is the extent to which testing goes. Being suspended for an OTC medication is garbage. It feels like an overreaction to the steroid hysteria.