April 3, 2015

Yes, Yes, Yes, You Can Drink It Some More

An arbitrator determined that Major League Baseball cannot discipline Josh Hamilton for falling off the wagon:

MLB said it took “the position that Hamilton violated his treatment program and is subject to discipline by the commissioner.”

A four-person treatment board created by baseball’s joint drug program, which includes one lawyer and one medical representative each appointed by management and the players’ association, deadlocked 2-2 on whether Hamilton should be disciplined. That caused the need for an arbitrator to break the tie.

The arbitrator said only that Hamilton was not subject to discipline and did not give reasons for the decision, the person familiar with the case told The Associated Press.

I’m quite frankly shocked by this. I think the MLBPA is a bit surprised as well:

The Major League Baseball Players Association said in a statement that it will “respect the integrity of the negotiated joint drug agreement process and protocols, as well as any decisions that are the result of that process.”

Note that this is a pretty neutral statement, the MLBPA is not celebrating this as a victory.

Anyway, it seems Josh can abuse substances all he wants now, as long as he turns himself in? He needs to take some advice from Ringo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZN_8M4OpMo

4 thoughts on “Yes, Yes, Yes, You Can Drink It Some More

  1. Donald A. Coffin

    My reading of the drug protocols is that a suspension requires a failed test. Hamilton didn’t fail a test; he *voluntarily* reported his drinking to the team. Had he not done that, there would have been no hearing and no suspension–but he would also have received no help. And the statements made by the Angels seem to make it clear he ain’t getting any help from them.

    Look, this stuff is hard to deal with. I’ve had family members who were (are) alcoholics, and the hardest thing is always for the person with the problem to acknowledge it and ask for, look for, help. So, for me, the fact that Hamilton acknowledged his current drinking issue is a positive step *for him,* even if it’s a problem for the Angels. Punishing him for acknowledging he needs help seems like a strange way to help him.

    ReplyReply
  2. David Pinto Post author

    Donald A. Coffin » Donald, you make a good argument. My question is, what’s to stop Hamilton for going to a bar, having a couple of drinks, and calling MLB to say, “Sorry, I drank tonight, I’m reporting it.” It seems he can behave that way now with no repercussions. That doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of his agreement.

    ReplyReply
  3. Donald A. Coffin

    David, as you well know, it’s not the “spirit” of the agreement that matters–it’s the agreement. That’s why MLB made it clear they expect to negotiate a change to the agreement.

    Also, “no repercussions” may be a stretch. Doesn’t the uniform player contract include something about the player maintaining his ability to perform? I suspect that, if he continues to drink/dope, the Angels might just release him and refuse to pay the remainder of his contract based on that part of the contract. And I would expect an arbitrator to rule *for* the Angels in such a circumstance.

    ReplyReply
  4. David Pinto Post author

    Donald A. Coffin » I don’t know. Teams have tried to get out of contracts on morals clauses before, and they failed. The MLBPA takes the guaranteed aspect of the contracts very seriously. I suspect the MLBPA would use the disease argument, and you don’t take away a contract for a disease.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *