Texas Manager Admits Cocaine Use in 2009

[TyCobb]

You think post #52 is long? ;-)

That's where I said what I think. For some reason, it triggered a bunch of opposition. Now, maybe you agree with what I said, or maybe you don't, but it's not crazy or extreme.

I don't see why it's a big deal for me to state my opinion when various others are giving their opinions about what the story should be about the manager in question. What it boils down to is that some folks think it's fine for people to give opinions they happen to agree with, but it's not fine to give alternate opinions...

I am going to be honest with you.

We have gotten in a few disagreements in the Hangout section and whenever that happens you always response to someone's or my simple post with a VERY LONG explanation. In your response you put out other ideas and make something simple into some complex idea. Now if it was rare no big deal. Sometimes it is need....But it happens frequently with you. So like in this post I read what your reading and in my head I am saying, "Not this again".

Your opinion is that you don't think it is right for managers to get drug tested for Coke or other non PEDs. I am sure a lot of people would agree with that. LJ didn't even agree/disagree with you and you still continue on privacy issues. That's annoying.

But hey, maybe it is just me.

[Lucky Jim]

Nice delete, Shack. I'd chalk it up to self-awareness, but I think it's hoping too much that you'd develop it this late in life.

[RShack]

Nice delete, Shack. I'd chalk it up to self-awareness, but I think it's hoping too much that you'd develop it this late in life.

There is no point in this. In large part, what's happened is that honest disagreement has been met by personal attack and pejorative labeling. People making things ugly and personal is why the rules discourage discussions of controversial matters. In general, it seems that things get locked when people get ugly.

[sakata_catching]

Well, this thread has gone well.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD3300--oQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD3300--oQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

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.

Word.

[SrMeowMeow]

My favorite part of the thread was where Lucky Jim quoted the whole thread in one post.

My take: probably not the first time Washington's done cocaine. Personally, I don't really care what he does to enjoy himself. It's not like he's operating heavy machinery or performing surgery. However, I also wouldn't object to him being fired over it, especially in the context of managing Josh Hamilton.

The only point I'd like to make on this whole privacy debate is that just because someone signs a contract that includes agreeing to random drug testing does not mean that random drug testing is not a violation of that person's rights.

[Lucky Jim]

The only point I'd like to make on this whole privacy debate is that just because someone signs a contract that includes agreeing to random drug testing does not mean that random drug testing is not a violation of that person's rights.

I don't follow. Unless you think "privacy" from your employer - which is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which wouldn't apply to private companies even if it did - is somehow an unwaivable right, then clearly signing a contract that includes drug testing means you've waived whatver that right means.

And we know that "privacy" is NOT an unwaivable right because we waive it all the time.

[SrMeowMeow]

I don't follow. Unless you think "privacy" from your employer - which is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which wouldn't apply to private companies even if it did - is somehow an unwaivable right, then clearly signing a contract that includes drug testing means you've waived whatver that right means.

And we know that "privacy" is NOT an unwaivable right because we waive it all the time.

Excellent. I knew if anyone was going to wade through those double negatives it would be you.

After thinking about it, my point is this: it can be wrong to ask someone to waive a right, both legally and morally. For example, if you made potential job applicants sign a form before applying that said "I allow the hiring body to use my race or gender as disqualifying factors in my application," that would be wrong, because we as a society, both morally and legally, widely recognize the right to be judged independent of those kinds of factors.

Even though privacy is not an "unwaivable right" as you put it, we recognize that it's not a clear-cut issue. For example, steroid testing for preschoolers is clearly not the same as steroid testing for baseball managers which is not the same as steroid testing for people who will actually benefit from steroids. If a day care asked parents to waive their child's right to privacy in the form of random drug testing, they would very likely be taken to court and they would very likely lose.

You can't say "privacy is not an unwaivable right, he waived it, end of story." If we decide (however rights are decided) that baseball managers have the right to privacy in regards to their recreational drug use, then it's wrong to ask them to waive that right - or, more correctly, to make waiving that right a requirement for the job.

And this doesn't even APPROACH the more realistic aspects of the question. This is a very legal, logical analysis, but in reality, there are many other problems. Most people don't question the legality of forms they're being asked to sign, especially for a coveted job. Most people wouldn't feel comfortable standing up against a random drug testing policy for baseball managers even if they felt it was a violation of rights for fear of a) losing their job or b) being stigmatized as someone who has something to hide.