Jeremy Jeffress suspended 100 games
by battlekow on Jun 26, 2009 8:29 PM EDT
Email
PrintRight-hander Jeremy Jeffress, rated by many as the top pitching prospect in the Brewers' farm system, has drawn a 100-game suspension for testing positive for a second time for a "substance of abuse."linkThe penalty leaves Jeffress, 21, one positive test away from a lifetime ban under the Minor League Drug Treatment and Prevention program.
Substances are not revealed under the minor league drug program but Jeffress admitted in the past to testing positive for marijuana near the end of the 2007 season, while pitching for Class A West Virginia. He received a 50-game suspension at the time, which carried over to the 2008 season.
Later that year, Jeffress tested positive for marijuana in a club-administered test that did not come with a suspension penalty. Under baseball’s minor league program, players receive 50-game suspensions for a first offense, 100 games for the second and a lifetime ban for the third, for both performance-enhancing drugs and "substances of abuse."
The Brewers could not confirm the positive test because the official announcment must come first from the commissioner's office.
"We can't talk about it yet," said assistant general manager Gord Ash, "not until the commissioner's office puts out a release and they are not prepared to do that yet."
Jeffress, a first-round draft pick in 2006, was pitching for the Brewers’ high Class A Brevard County (Fla.) affiliate at the time of the positive test. He began the season at Class AA Huntsville but was demoted because of control problems after eight starts.
Jeffress was 2-1 with a 2.18 ERA in six games (five starts) at Brevard. He went 1-3 with a 7.57 ERA in eight starts at Huntsville, with 33 walks in 27 1/3 innings.
Players who have tested positive in the past are subjected to more frequent tests, so Jeffress had to know he stood a good chance of being caught if he smoked marijuana again.
Realizing Jeffress needed professional help, the Brewers helped place him in a Phoenix-area rehabilitation program in November 2007 during the first session of their winter development program for minor league prospects. The next spring, in an interview with the Journal Sentinel, Jeffress admitted to his marijuana problem and vowed to stay clean.
The Brewers gave Jeffress a $1.55 million signing bonus after taking him with the 16th overall pick in the first round of the 2006 draft.
Jeffress is ranked as the No. 4 prospect in the Brewers' system and the top pitcher by Baseball America magazine.
87 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ouch
Nothing much else to say …. ouch for the Brewers, shame the kid couldn’t keep himself clean.
Pretty tough for the Crew
for a top prospect to have an issue with a substance.
Remember to retire Fin's number, Mark.
Well he'll be in the Independent League next year
I don’t think he’ll ever pitch a MLB inning in his life.
"Jeffress admitted to his marijuana problem"
Is there really such a thing? I certainly don’t lump marijuana in with cocaine, alcohol, meth or heroin in terms of being a drug that has physically addictive qualities.
it is possible to become addicted to marijuana
It’s not nearly as common as with the other substances you mentioned, but it is possible (I heard Dr. Drew talking about this subject today on a podcast).
it's impossible
marijuana is not an addictive drug…….booze, sure……..cocaine, sure……..heroin, sure…….you can not be addicted to mary jane……it’s habit forming and that is all……..you don’t physically withdraw from it…….completely different story
lies
Simply not true. It’s not chemically addictive. If Dr. Drew wants to try to define “addiction” as “hey, it’s really good and I like to do it a lot even if it screws my life up”, then you can call it addictive.
But pot isn’t addictive just like gambling and sex aren’t addictive. People are just idiots
by Galt on Jun 26, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Addiction
A psychological addiction can be just as crippling to a person as a chemical one. I don’t think it’s a matter of stupidity so much as it is certain predispositions people have in life.
Kind of sucks that Jeffress could get a lifetime ban for smoking dope at the wrong time, though.
by Outshined_One on Jun 26, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
No it can't
people being weak minded and helpless is nowhere near anything close to chemical withdrawal. It’s like saying, “OMG, If I couldn’t play fantasy baseball this year, I WOULD JUST DIE!!!!” and equating it to stopping heroin.
Society likes to define non addictive things like food, sex, gambling, video games, pot, and whatever else as addictive to give derelicts an excuse
I'd call you
an idiot, but we’ve seen this Tom Cruise lack of knowing what you’re talking about out of you before. Psychological addiction is very real. Not on the same level as chemical/physical addiction, but it exists none-the-less. Just think of it this way – it would absolutely kill you to not act like a complete high and mighty know it all tool 24/7.
And would it kill you......
To not act like a troll on this site as you appear to be looking for a pissing contest every chance you get. Where exactly did Galt offend you, or anyone else, in this post to the point where you had to take personal shots at him? Do I agree with Galt? No, psychological addictions can be very addictive as any doctor will tell you. Was there a need to call galt a ‘tool’? Absolutely not and it just once again illustrate that you are more interested in insulting people on this site then actually contributing in a positive manner.
Personally, I do not believe that Jeffress is addicted to pot, and if he is, he should have entered into baseball’s drug counselling program and/or a rehab facility. Instead I think he is a dumb kid who is smoking his career away. Should pot be against the drug policy? Probably not. However, since it is, I am amazed at the stupidity and lack of maturity that Jeffress is displaying by continuing to do this banned act. He is literally throwing away potentially millions of dollars to smoke a joint.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jun 27, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
LOL
Asking you to respect John’s wishes to not display trollish behaviour doesn’t seem unreasonable. You used to be a respected member of this site, but now you have become a parity of your former self, sort of like the minorleagueball version of Tim McCarver.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jun 27, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
You wanna bitch
about trolling, go find a Vin Mazzaro thread. Galt’s post was full of ridiculous, non-fact based crap – just like his take on obesity was – so I called it like I saw it. If that rubs people the wrong way – too goddamn bad, but it’s not trolling, it’s just speaking on galt’s level, as he has clearly demonstrated in this thread.
You're right.
Galt’s comment was ignorant, at best.
Damn
and I was just talking about his initial comment. The comment below blows right past ignorance into full-blown idiocy.
WTF
what are you talking about in the Vin Mazarro thread? I haven’t said a word in that thread. I don’t care about the player. The only comment I’ve made is mocking the guy who incessantly posts about him.
Making up stuff is fun.
Cite a source or shut it.
Believe it or not....
the world does not revolve around you galty-poo. I referenced the Mazzaro thread as an example of trolling. I said nothing specific about you trolling there in particular. Reading comprehension fever – catch it!
Also
Galt, if you want to see a prime example of trolling, just refer to Slurve’s Edwin Jackson thread!!!!
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jun 28, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
That Edwin Jackson thread was an Epic Fail!!!!!! ;)
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jun 28, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
How is slurve being a troll for putting an ignorant moron in his place?
by thejd44 on Jun 27, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
blow me
You are a whiny cunt who does nothing but get personal with people incessantly.
compulsions are much different than addictions. This has nothing to do with psychiatry, idiot.
And unlike Tom Cruise, I’m not going to rely on some sham religion like Scientology or any other.
You are no longer allowed to read any of my posts or respond to anything I write ever again.
In short, get fucked.
Watch Yourself
Galt, you’ve been around ages and you’re a big part of the site. You should know better than to get into a flame war, much less spout that sort of invective.
I actually happen to think people would do better to just admit their own weakness than to become a part of the pill culture that’s enveloping the USA, but… some people are imbalanced and some people are highly dependent, even psychologically, on substances of abuse. In the case of Jeffress, he may well be in that very small percentage of people who are psychologically addicted to marijuana, and that’s a damn shame. He has a world of potential, and I do hope he gets better.
You guys are going by one definition of addition that does not encompass the entire scope
Just because someone doesn’t suffer physical withdrawal symptoms from something does not indicate a lack of addiction. If you go by the definition which states addiction as “compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative health and social consequences”, marijuana addiction does exist (same with sex, gambling, nicotine, etc).
Doesn't mean it's right
And, constitutionally, it’s pretty much outside of federal jurisdiction to regulate drugs and alcohol. And there are now twelve states where cannabis has been decriminalized. In a lot of states what Jeffress did would be on par with a cheap speeding ticket.
So what?
I didnt put any value on it. If you want to know the difference, well the difference was pot is illegal.
Regardless of right or wrong, this dope Jeffress KNEW he could get suspended 100 games and wreck his career and he risked it anyway.
My point was
It’s just as dumb for marijuana to be on the banned list as it is for Jeffress to use it.
That's kind of irrelevant.
Until pot is legalized, thinking it’s stupid to be a controlled substance is moot.
Let me put this another way: you see a problem, you don’t see the people in charge doing anything to fix the problem, but you still see a problem. When, then, does thinking about it end and doing something about it begin? If you don’t like it, don’t want it to be illegal, go do something about it. Sitting around complaining about it is damned useless behavior.
I know it isn’t easy, but seeing as how there’s a bevy of pot users out there and spokespersons for legalization (Bill Maher, for example), it would just require someone to get the… pardon the pun… grass roots movement going necessary to influence the legalizing bodies. It’s been done before.
(Now that lecturing is done, let me end this on a purely humorous note)
But then again, we are talking about pot users here… I mean, get them to actually DO something…
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 27, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Well...not necessarily
If one believes a law is sufficiently wrong that one is willing to go to jail in order to show it being wrong, then there is a reasonable argument for so doing (think Gandhi and MLK non-violence campaigns). That isn’t exactly Jeremy Jeffress though. (Though I do agree that the ban should either be lifted, or the punishment at least dramatically reduced)
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jun 27, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed.
If someone believes something is wrong and wants it to change, change it. If that means you go to jail in protest or what have you, then I’m all for it. But sitting around just saying “well I don’t think it should be illegal, therefore don’t punish those who break crimes” is accomplishing precisely zero.
Therefore, it is irrelevant what someone’s opinion is. What is relevant is the law is the law, the rules are the rules, and the consequences are the consequences. Until they change.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 27, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
And those 12 states where marijuana is decriminalized would be which again?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jun 27, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
And
Lest we forget, the initial ban on cannabis came about as a racist and classist campaign spurred by fears from the Mexican Revolution, featuring photos of revolutionaries sitting in high end Mexico City cafes smoking reefer. At which point they started calling it “marijuana” to make it sound foreign and evil (and to associate it with the wealthy potentially being overthrown by the poor).
The whole thing’s a sham.
I don't know about that.
Sounds too conspiratorial for me. I prefer facts.
But, in general, the “War on Drugs” is ineffective at best and counter productive at worst. We can show evidence that supports the ineffectiveness and counter productivity. Just leave it at that and skip the specific anti-pot schenanigaans.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 27, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Good thing
Webster’s dictionary doesn’t dictate science or political policy. Or else the BS excuse that “marriage” is between a man and a woman, would be a valid one.
Hi.
My name is Left Field. Your comment just came out of me and I don’t appreciate it.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 27, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it's a lot more like alcohol than the other drugs you mentioned
I’m not sure marijuana is what’s drawing these suspensions though. Soto isn’t going to be suspended for his positive test, is he?
by thejd44 on Jun 26, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Soto tested positive during the WBC
He was suspended for two years from international play, but that’s not under the purview of MLB. And no, no one knows if it was pot that Jeffress was busted for this time, but it’s a fairly safe assumption given his history.
It was a great selection of awesome.
I'm pretty sure MLB CAN suspend him though, can't they?
In fact, I don’t believe an actual positive test is actually required for suspension. A positive test that just happens to be done by another organization certainly has to pass whatever test of proof they need.
by thejd44 on Jun 26, 2009 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I know, but I'm wondering WHY they won't
When they absolutely can. If they’re suspending some for it, they should suspend everybody who tests positive.
Uneven enforcement of the rules makes the rules pointless.
by thejd44 on Jun 27, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
They can't, legally
The CBA says that they can only suspend people if they test positive under the MLB testing regime.
Different sort of animal
It’s the difference between a physical dependence and a psychological dependence. Marijuana is capable of falling into the latter but not the former category . . .which isn’t to minimize the difficulty of breaking away from regular usage of it, but if you smoked it every day and suddenly stopped, your body would not suffer the side effects that come from heroin withdrawal.
Pot might make you feel good and you might get used to that feeling, but the two are by no means necessarily tied together. Thus the popular notion that pot is a gateway drug.
the only reason pot is a "gateway drug"
is because nobody wakes up one morning, after living years of sober life and says…. i think ill blow some coke today… or i think id like to mainline some heroin….
you start with oh, ill just smoke one joint… then next thing you know you wake up in a piss stained mattress with a crusty pillow, heroin tracks on your arm and no recollection of how i got there………….
Eh...
The main problem with this argument is that it assumes that ONLY pot is a gateway drug. It also assumes that people who do pot are going to do other drugs.
The feeling of getting high can be induced by several methods, most of which are perfectly legal, albeit dangerous. Those who want to get high will do so no matter what got them into it in the first place. Besides, the argument also has the inconsistency of being contradictory to the idea of peer pressure. If it’s pot that gets you into other drugs, then someone pressuring you into trying cocaine wouldn’t exist. They’d just give you pot and let it go!
That’s not how it works. I don’t doubt that there are people who, once they’ve “broken” the drug “barrier” are more likely to try other drugs (easy rationalization), but I don’t see it as specifically related to pot. It could just as easily be sniffing glue.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 27, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
stupid
Stupid that pot is illegal. Stupid that people are being suspended for doing it. Stupid that he’s knowingly risking his career to get high.
Mostly the last one.
Lots of the drugs/supplements/substances on the banned substances list are legal, some are legal without a prescription. It really doesn’t matter whether it should be legal in the United States or anywhere else. What matters is if a private company does not want its employees using it. It’s stupid to do so if you are or want to be one of those employees.
by thejd44 on Jun 26, 2009 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Calling someone stupid for using a banned substance and saying that same substance should not be banned are not mutually exclusive
It was a great selection of awesome.
I'm aware of that
I just think that the discussion on whether it should or shouldn’t is a moot point in this case.
by thejd44 on Jun 27, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
What if he gets that 3rd strike...
Then Marijuana is made legal in the US? Would he get a reprieve?
by AthleticsReign on Jun 26, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
If you want to play in the bigs, you follow the rules (if you agree with them or not)
There are people – lots of them- who would trade years of their life for even one game in the majors. This kid can’t give pot a rest until he retires in just a few years? He simply doesn’t want it bad enough. That’s it.
When he’s 50 years old and dragging his tired body out of bed to go to his day job, he’ll know regret.
by my dixie wrecked on Jun 26, 2009 11:45 PM EDT reply actions
ooooh lil good ol cannabis! he must be a monster!! quick! we have to do something for the kids! the kids i tell you! they can’t know people smoke marijuana!
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
I'm sorry, but this is really stupid
Considering the number of alcoholics throughout MLB, the fact that they test for pot is just dumb. A player, particularly a pitcher, is going to be better off going to the park a bit burnt out every day than they are hung over.
How do we know it's pot?
just sayin. chances are it was given his history, but it might have been something worse.
baseball rules.
Drug of abuse
It’s highly unlikely it would be any other drug of abuse. The tragic irony of marijuana’s relatively benign qualities is that it stays in your system much longer than any other drug of abuse. Cocain, ecstasy, amphetamines, and even heroin all clean out of one’s system within a few days to a week at most, while tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), one of key chemicals in marijuana, can stick in your system for up to a month. So unless he’s doing blow every day, I’m guessing he just had a toke.
Like others, I fail to understand what purpose this serves
Either he is able to perform at a sufficient level, or he isn’t. He’s sure as hell not helping himself out by smoking weed.
I think I understand pretty well what purpose marijuana regulation serves for society at large (provide a facile excuse to repress underclass/black individuals), but I don’t really see what sports gets out of it for playing along. I can’t imagine there are many people who say to themselves, “Gee, I wasn’t planning to go out to the Single-A park, but now that I hear they’ve busted a black dude for smoking out, my faith in the national pastime is instantly restored!”
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I agree
If it is weed I just don’t understand how that warrants the same penalty as a performing enhancing drug or even cocaine or harder recreational drugs. I’d like to state that I am by no means a pot head or regular user, though I do dabble as I’m sure most on this board has at one point or another, so it’s not like I have some hidden agenda to push through. I just don’t think marijuana should be lumped in the same category as steroids and other performaing enhancing drugs. As Paul Thomas stated, if he’s getting the job done and smoking weed, so what? It’s not helping him in anyway other than to maybe wind down at the end of a long day. No different from having a drink when you get home from work in my opinion. But this may be a larger and broader issue for the nation and not just baseball.
by cursedcleveland on Jun 27, 2009 8:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I fail to see...
what Jeffress being black has to do with him being a complete and utter moron. He’s aware of the rules and the punishment and still chose to do it. Not once, but twice now. If millions of others can stop doing it or don’t do it because of their careers, then he can too. If it’s not addictive, as some here have stated, then why can’t he stop doing it and jeopardizing his career? Socioeconomic and racial issues have nothing to do with it, he’s just an idiot.
by Looney4baseball on Jun 27, 2009 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Wrong
When marijuana laws have a vastly disproportionate effect on African Americans despite the fact that white folks actually use marijuana more, it’s always relevant.
Question
I was wondering if your statement that ‘white folk’ use pot more than African Americans is true. Are you talking about in the % of ‘white folk’ as opposed to the % of African Americans who use pot? Or are you referring to the total number of ‘white folk’ as opposed to the total number of African Americans?
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jun 27, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Percentage-wise
A lot of studies have shown higher rates of use among caucasians than among African Americans. It’s a statistic that I’ve seen in a bunch of different places. I’m pretty sure Eric Schlosser’s Reefer Madness addresses it.
As for being impossible to prove, I think when there have been enough studies and surveys done on the topic – and there have been a hell of lot of them – it’s pretty much proven.
What does it matter?
More black people are in jail for pot related crimes. That’s pretty much the only stat you need for your argument.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 27, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions
no, it's not wrong.
MLB is not society and not singling out anyone based on race. Arguing race in societal context is completely different that arguing race in a baseball context. I’m not talking about society, I’m talking about MLB testing. MLB tests everyone. It’s not like they are only testing and singling out black players. Especially after he failed a first test, he’s going to get tested more often. Point blank he’s just a complete moron for doing it a second time after already getting caught once.
Additionally, the incidence of marijuana use is about the same per 1000 white/black people. At least in studies done in the late 1990’s.
by Looney4baseball on Jun 27, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course he's an idiot
I like weed, but I’d much rather be employed than smoke.
That’s trivial, though. I’m far more interested in the why than the what. The point is, the why is (almost has to be) related in some way to baseball’s self-conscious effort to uphold “Americana,” part of which historically involves the repression of minorities…
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
There's certainly something to be said for unequal prosecution
I’m not going to sit back here and lie to you an say there aren’t fewer minorities in prisons than whites. However, we’re talking about a business here. Intentionally promoting racially motivated justice would be counter productive.
Businesses have to remain as neutral as possible, or they run the risk of losing larger amounts of money to discrimination lawsuits then from theoretical lost business due to allowing one of your black players to toke.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 27, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure, but that's not the kind of race/classism I'm talking about
There are multiple levels involved here. The most obvious kind of racism is what you’re talking about— explicit differentiation between people on the basis of race. That’s illegal, easy to detect, and basically stupid in this day and age, so no one important does it anymore. Obviously that’s not why Jeffress was busted.
The next level is to adopt policies which are facially neutral, but have a disproportionate effect on people from certain backgrounds (almost always underclass of some sort). Very common and legal, so it’s possible that this is what’s going on here. However, I don’t really see how it’s in baseball’s interest to whitewash the game. I don’t doubt that there is a certain segment of the population which would love to see sports “cleaned up” by removing those undesirables from the player pool (try reading an ESPN comment thread after some NBA player gets busted for a crime and you’ll see what I’m talking about), but I’m pretty certain the fans you gain from that group would be more than canceled out by the fans you lose because the game is being played at a lower level.
So you have to dig even deeper. As I said, I suspect it has something to do with a felt need on the part of baseball to represent American “values,” and the publicly acceptable version of those values excludes marijuana (but not alcohol, which is why Tony LaRussa is still managing…). It’s not that there’s a market as such for “people who hate marijuana/marijuana smokers,” which is what I sort of mocked in my first comment— it’s that banning marijuana is part of a broader branding strategy of aping “conservative American values,” whatever those might happen to be at the time.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I see what you're saying.
However, I don’t believe that a ban on pot use is specifically designed to have a greater effect on minorities or a particular one. It’s actually harder than you think to be stereotypical when implementing rules such as this. Not only that, but things change. What was true before and possibly a stereotype with which to create a… let’s call it “non obvious” racist rule… may not be true a few years later. Thus, the law left in place may simply result in a different outcome.
Also, from a business point of view, allowing drug use of any kind could reflect back badly upon the company. I don’t know of any business that allows their employees to use illegal narcotics. As far as I know, mandatory urine testing is still a requirement for most employers.
I see your point of view on this, but I’m not sure this is the case here. There are certainly a lot more overt racially motivated legal actions that we should concern ourselves with first.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 29, 2009 2:32 AM EDT up reply actions
How about simply for public image reasons?
Despite all the potheads who apparently post here, there’s clearly a stigma against the drug in society despite it’s actual effects and the real reasons for its legal status. As a PR move, penalizing marijuana users is probably a good thing.
by thejd44 on Jun 27, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
If players caught using drugs cost MLB or MILB franchises lost corporate or ticket revenues, then I understand why they have these drugs on the banned list.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jun 27, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
if they didn't penalize them, how would fans know?
just like, how do we know if David Wells used to drink 10 beers after a game, or 14?
So, you actually DO think there are people who say [insert quotation from above] to themselves?
Keep in mind, without the reporting on these drug suspensions, no one would know Jeffress, or anyone else, was using.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
You Can get Suspended for Pot in the Minors but not MLB.
The guy who’s these things inside and out is Will Carroll. Here’s his take:
There are no repercussions at the MLB level. It surprised me more that people thought that it would cost him much of anything. Marijuana is tested for, but it’s a “drug of abuse” that has a special status in the Joint Drug Agreement (PDF link). If you’ll go to Page 17, section F, you’ll see that there’s a progressive financial penalty, installation into the “Administrative Track” (which means more frequent testing), but no suspension. Not ever. I know of one player that’s been caught more than five times. This is the negotiated testing agreement, one that’s not significantly different than the “for cause” testing in the NFL and NBA. At a time where the marijuana penalties are being debated, this isn’t an issue that baseball wants to see brought into the light. For those wondering about minor league suspensions for pot—yes, there are different rules down there where the Commissioner can make edicts.
Fat man is no more,
Bursting on through Heaven's Door
Come on in, says Bill
If I were the Brewers, I'd add him to the 40 man roster
which would mean he would no longer be suspended and not worry about his smoking weed a bit.
Tools Whore
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Minor League Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
