Texas Manager Admits Cocaine Use in 2009

[Lucky Jim]

I'd say I'm shocked by the hyperbolic levels of umbrage and sanctimony in this thread. But, you know, nothing shocks me on this board anymore.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah it makes no sense to not fire him.

When I was in the Army if a soldier E-4 and below would burn a urine test they would demote them to E-1 and give them an Article 15 and a month and a half extra duty. But if you were a E-5 or higher they would chapter you out right away.

A manager of a ballclub is much like a First Sgt. You cant really give them a break on this kind of mistake. It is assumed that they are in a position of leadership and they are grownups by then.

I would love to know what a career soldier like Tony thinks of this issue.

How is the military even remotely comparable? What an illogical analogy.

Any number of things can happen that lead one to try something new late in life - divorce or separation, new stressors, a battle with depression, etc.

Which isn't to say that I'm convinced he never did it before. I don't care whether he did it before or not. There's a system set up in MLB which diverts these issues. Washington has done his counseling and he has stayed clean since.

Great coaches can have personal issues. The fact that this has been handled seamlessly is a pretty good sign that whatever his usage, his "problem" wasn't debilitating. Would it be better if he abused something legal?

William Rehnquist, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had a serious pill problem while he was serving as Chief Justice. It started late in life, and it was dealt with. I'm no Rehnquist fan, but if the person in charge of interpreting our Constitution can muscle through an addiction, I'm pretty sure that Washington can lead a team of millionaire's playing a children's game through a season.

[TGO]

To add to Lucky Jim's post, isn't one of the obvious explanations that he started taking it because he was stressed out by the manager's job and thought it might help him get more stuff done? Plenty of managers smoke and drink to help them calm down. Washington may have felt he needed a boost in the other direction. I don't really believe he had never done it before either, but if he really hasn't, that might be why he did it. I know half the people here think they could manage a baseball team, but it's probably pretty difficult.

[Dr. FLK]

I'd say I'm shocked by the hyperbolic levels of umbrage and sanctimony in this thread. But, you know, nothing shocks me on this board anymore.

Because people think that a manager should be fired for using cocaine? If I ran a multimillion dollar business, I would fire someone who is supposed to represent my organization for using cocaine. I don't think that's very unreasonable. You seem to like pointing out how much more open-minded you are then us mere mortals...sometimes you're right, this time seems a bit questionable.

[RShack]

Testing for roids is relevant to baseball. You might agree or disagree, but there is a plausible case that PED's affect the integrity of the game on the field.

Testing for recreational drugs is nothing but a public image thing for MLB. The idea that somebody who smokes pot or does the a line of coke on their own time is giving themselves an unfair advantage on the field is absurd. A manager never performs at playing baseball anyway. This is all about MLB's public image, and has nothing to do with the game itself.

If the team wants to fire the manager over this, they certainly can do so. But let's be clear about what the reason would be: he put them in a PR-bind that maybe makes the team look bad. That's pretty much all there is to it. Let's not confuse that with some great moral issue. It's not like the guy did anything to hurt anybody else. A lot of the noise here is about people jumping on the Demon Drug bandwagon, which is largely fact-free and makes about as much sense as the Salem Witch trials. It's just about the image of a profitable industry and the steps they take to manage their image. It has nothing to do with baseball.

[Lucky Jim]

Because people think that a manager should be fired for using cocaine? If I ran a multimillion dollar business, I would fire someone who is supposed to represent my organization for using cocaine. I don't think that's very unreasonable. You seem to like pointing out how much more open-minded you are then us mere mortals...sometimes you're right, this time seems a bit questionable.

This post breaks down under the weight of its own contradictions. How am I saying that I'm somehow above "mere mortals" by defending Washington because he is, essentially, human (i.e., flawed, prone to lapses in judgment, etc.) My position on this is the "mortal" one, refusing some Manichaen, rigid, and/or binary take on the issue of a single failed drug test.

It's entirely possible that I'm more lenient than others, and that leniency has been conditioned by work environments where high achieving individuals are given leeway to fail, at times, because their talents make the risk worthwhile. This was especially true in graduate school (where I was one of the ones given a second chance) and is even true at my law firm. There's a limit to that tolerance. But that limit isn't a single failed drug test.

As Shack noted, drug tests for recreational drugs are meant to feret out private behavior. And that's fine. But this doesn't appear to be a case where Washington's use was so pervasive and encompassing that it spilled out into the world - he didn't get picked up with it in his car, get caught using it in a club, etc. It's a bad habit, and it needed to stop. But if people popped up at random times to check on most of us, they'd probably catch us doing something we're ashamed of eventually.

[RShack]

As Shack noted, drug tests for recreational drugs are meant to feret out private behavior. And that's fine.

I don't think it's fine. I think it's the opposite of fine. It's just another case of why we need some civil liberties protections that apply to more than just the government, that apply to corporate snooping too. Unless somebody is in some special kind of job, like flying the public around on airplanes or doing some national security thing, I don't think employers should be snooping around in everybody's bodily fluids or in other aspects of their private lives. They never used to do that, it's only a very recent thing. America became a superpower and wrote the book on success without this kind of nonsense. It's not like the success of our society is tied to letting corporations do whatever they want, just because they want to. People should have privacy rights, and not just from the government. There needs to be some "need to know" basis that justifies snooping around in the private lives of everybody...

[Lucky Jim]

I don't think it's fine. I think it's just another case of why we need some civil liberties protections that apply to more than just the government, that apply to corporate snooping too. Unless somebody is in some special kind of job, like flying the public around on airplanes or doing some national security thing, I don't see think employers should be snooping around in everybody's bodily fluids or in other aspects of their private lives. They never used to do that, it's only a very recent thing. America somehow became a superpower and wrote the book on success without this kind of nonsense. It's not like the success of our society is tied to letting corporations do whatever they want, just because they want to. People should have privacy rights, and not just from the government.

They do have a way of avoiding it. Don't take the job. I think your take on this is just as simplistic as those who are overly invasive and/or overly draconian. Clearly this kind of behavior exists on a continuum. And while some areas have tighter restrictions than others, due to issues of public perception, in this case there's clearly a trade-off. For Washington, the prestige and salary are clearly worth the trade-off in privacy. Freedom of contract goes both ways. Here, Washington is, essentially, contracting with MLB. And he's determined that the loss of privacy is worth the gain in other areas.

But it's really simple to avoid it: do something else. This isn't a case of corporate snooping. Nor is it the right place for another "anti-corporatist" screed. This is a contract entered into, with conditions, by two parties. That's pretty much the definition of civil liberty. It's not a one-way street. There are two private bodies at issue here, each with their own preferences.

BTW, I didn't say that you think it's fine, if that's your issue. Those are two separate sentences. One in which I note your point, one in which I make my own.

[waroriole]

They do have a way of avoiding it. Don't take the job. I think your take on this is just as simplistic as those who are overly invasive and/or overly draconian. Clearly this kind of behavior exists on a continuum. And while some areas have tighter restrictions than others, due to issues of public perception, in this case there's clearly a trade-off. For Washington, the prestige and salary are clearly worth the trade-off in privacy. Freedom of contract goes both ways. Here, Washington is, essentially, contracting with MLB. And he's determined that the loss of privacy is worth the gain in other areas.

But it's really simple to avoid it: do something else.

BTW, I didn't say that you think it's fine, if that's your issue. Those are two separate sentences. One in which I note your point, one in which I make my own.

Yep. I don't know why some people equate a right to privacy from gov't (which constitution gives) with right to privacy from your employer. If you agree to the random drug tests, then that is your problem.

[Lucky Jim]

Yep. I don't know why some people equate a right to privacy from gov't (which constitution gives) with right to privacy from your employer. If you agree to the random drug tests, then that is your problem.

It's like invoking the First Amendment regarding posts on this board.

[RShack]

They do have a way of avoiding it. Don't take the job. I think your take on this is just as simplistic as those who are invasive.

That's the standard excuse for nixing any employee rights with respect to private behavior. It's also a vacuous one. It's pretty much a "love it or leave it" answer to a very real and complex issue. That's what's 'simplistic".

Your claim that it's 'simplistic" to say there needs to be some kind of criteria for violating personal privacy is itself an extremist position. I never said what the criteria should be, I just said there needs to be some kind of reasonable criteria. Evidently, you think there should be no criteria, that whatever the employer wants to know about somebody's private life is fine, and they can snoop around in a person's body all they want.

That's about as simplistic and extreme as you can get. It also provides a way around civil liberties, as it enables the gov't to just have a private company do it's snooping dirty work for them. So much for personal privacy. Evidently, "Land of the Free" means "Land of no-more-privacy, Land of letting companies do whatever they want, and if people don't like their privacy being violated, well, too bad". It's equivalent to saying, "You're not required to give up your privacy... unless you want to eat..."

[RShack]

Yep. I don't know why some people equate a right to privacy from gov't (which constitution gives) with right to privacy from your employer. If you agree to the random drug tests, then that is your problem.

It's not 1787 anymore. The threats to personal privacy are way different now than they were then. As it is, existing databases can be used to track your personal behavior to an extreme degree. Every thing you buy (unless you use cash), every call you make (unless you use public pay phones, which are disappearing), every location you visit (unless you turn your cell phone off). Furthermore, the gov't can acquire all this, just by buying it from the private sector. I can't believe so many people think it's fine to not have decent rules about our personal privacy. It's not crazy or extreme to say that info about you should belong to you, not to whoever owns comprehensive data-sweep operations...

[BRobinsonfan]

Yep. I don't know why some people equate a right to privacy from gov't (which constitution gives) with right to privacy from your employer. If you agree to the random drug tests, then that is your problem.

Well, yes and no. While the fourth amendment doesn't apply to corporations and employment contracts, aren't workers still guaranteed certain basic rights under statute? I.E.

The Equal Pay Act

Fair Labor Standards Act

OSHA standards

Americans with Disabilities Act

Age Discrimination

Civil Rights Act

Basic Privacy Laws

[Lucky Jim]

That's the standard excuse for nixing any employee rights with respect to private behavior. It's also a vacuous one. It's pretty much a "love it or leave it" answer to a very real and complex issue. That's what's 'simplistic".

Your claim that it's 'simplistic" to say there needs to be some kind of criteria for violating personal privacy is itself an extremist position. I never said what the criteria should be, I just said there needs to be some kind of reasonable criteria. Evidently, you think there should be no criteria, that whatever the employer wants to know about somebody's private life is fine, and they can snoop around in a person's body all they want.

That's about as simplistic and extreme as you can get. It also provides a way around civil liberties, as it enables the gov't to just have a private company do it's snooping dirty work for them. So much for personal privacy. Evidently, "Land of the Free" means "Land of no-more-privacy, Land of letting companies do whatever they want, and if people don't like their privacy being violated, well, too bad". It's equivalent to saying, "You're not required to give up your privacy... unless you want to eat..."

I don't even know what this is talking about Shack. Not the world as I've ever seen it. And not Ron Washington's situation, either.

There's nothing "simplistic" about my take on this. What "private" company is doing "snooping dirty work" on behalf of the government here? Your hypotheticals are irrelevant to any of the actual issues at stake.

Oh, wait - you're not actually talking about this, but instead going off on the anti-corporatist screed that most of us hoped wouldn't happen. Ah, well.

Also, the bolded part is at best unevidence and at worst willfully disingenuous. I never said that, nor did I imply it.

I should know better than to engage you on these issues. Because you can't be engaged any more than a gun can be "engaged." Instead, you both just go off. And, indeed, the effect of your posts on these subjects is like that of a gun going off in a car. Disruptive at a minimum, and often times fatal to the thread.

[Lucky Jim]

It's not 1787 anymore. The threats to personal privacy are way different now than they were then. As it is, existing databases can be used to track your personal behavior to an extreme degree. Every thing you buy (unless you use cash), every call you make (unless you use public pay phones, which are disappearing), every location you visit (unless you turn your cell phone off). Furthermore, the gov't can acquire all this, just by buying it from the private sector. I can't believe so many people think it's fine to not have decent rules about our personal privacy. It's not crazy or extreme to say that info about you should belong to you, not to whoever owns comprehensive data-sweep operations...

Shack's profile pic: http://www.swssec.com/brill-treebug.jpg