Neal: Rosario has nothing to do but wait

[Steven Buhr]

I'm pretty sure the drug policy (including the minor league policy) was negotiated by the players union. True, the minor leaguers aren't allowed membership in the union that negotiated those terms, but that's a different issue (that we beat to death in another thread).

 

Look, I'm a child of the 60s-70s and it's unlikely I'd have passed many drug tests if my HS and Juco sports teams had administered them, so I'm about as open minded on this issue as anyone.

 

That said, if my shot at earning a job that comes with a half-million dollar minimum wage depended on me not using pot... or alcohol... or Hostess Cupcakes... and I knew I could and would be tested for such a substance... and that said policy was negotiated as part of collective bargaining and had zero chance of being thrown out any time soon... I'd like to think even my 19 year-old self would have been smart enough to make sure I didn't screw up... twice.

 

I think it's arguably a legitimate safety issue for baseball to want to keep players from playing ball under the influence of drugs, even a relatively harmless one. That said, if baseball (and the union) really felt such use of MJ was a safety issue, then penalties wouldn't apply only to minor leaguers, so that's a pretty flimsy rationale.

 

But regardless, the rule is there, Rosario was well aware of it because he failed a prior test that got him warned, and he still failed a second time. Pretty stupid move.

[Steven Buhr]

Brock, I understand you being willing to pass on a job that imposes drug testing that you feel is unwarranted and/or a violation of your privacy rights. It's fine (some might even say laudible) that you would take such a stand.

 

I just have to ask whether you'd be quite so firm in your convictions if (a) the job you were being offered had a very high chance of turning in to a $500,000/year gig... at a MINIMUM... if you turn out to be as good at your job as that potential employer believes you can be; and ( there is no other alternative employer you could move on to and get any kind of similar job for more than, say, 1% of that compensation level.

 

Taking a stand for your beliefs is all well and good, but you have to be willing to accept the consequences. Your consequences are you have to move on and get other work elsewhere. Rosario's consequences are similar, but I suspect much more financially risky.

[diehardtwinsfan]

In the eyes of the federal law, marijuana is illegal EVERYWHERE, regardless of what state law is. My senior government kids get pissed about this all the time, but I MAKE them understand that federal law supersedes state law. Just ask John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and the Confederacy about laws and who tells who what to do. That is my government/law and justice rant for today

 

Not to the derail this thread, but it's already there...

 

The 10th amendment to the constitution says otherwise. Federal law only supersedes state law where it is explicitly granted in the Constitution, not that anyone from either party actually reads it anymore. Jefferson Davis and the confederacy lost in the field of battle, not in a courtroom.

[diehardtwinsfan]

His stick is useless at 2B if Dozier and Polanco are playing there. And, he's better than Willingham or Collabello, and Kubel is gone in a year or two. Who is your LF, if not Rosario? I guess if you are willing to trade Dozier for a legit player or three, you keep Rosario at 2B. But at some point, it sure would be great to play for the present, and not keep trading your good players for the future....

 

If Dozier and Polanco are the 2B for this team and neither can move to SS, Rosario is worth far more in a trade than he would be in a corner position. That's a good problem to have I might add.

[diehardtwinsfan]

How dumb. A 19-year-old smoked a joint. Big deal. MLB has no business, and certainly no right, to suspend a player for that level of infraction. Time to get a lawyer. Really, what harm did Rosario bring to himself, to others, or the sport of baseball? Marijuana has been proven to be less harmful than drinking alcohol!

 

The Anti-Trust exemption is a big deal for MLB, and arbitrary rules like this that violate a person's right to work and make a living are eventually going to be weeded out (sic). By force of law if need be.

 

I'd say something about the players agreeing to this as a part of the CBA, but as we discovered in another thread, minor leaguers don't get a collective vote. There will be a lot of interesting CBA changes as this lawsuit that former minor leaguers have brought on works its way through. I could see this being a casualty too. It's kind of unfair to test only the minor leaguers for pot while people on the 40 man can smoke at will.

[diehardtwinsfan]

But in my expereince with drugs, I think the idea that you can use 2014 super-pot in your off hours and the effects won't bleed into your work

is a little preposterous.

 

So I'm not alone here when I say that I've never had a hangover from drinking?

 

That's a true statement by the way, but the reality is that most people do get hung over from drinking, and many show up at work the next day. Personally, I think you should be judged on your performance. If a person keeps showing up hung over, or working off whatever he/she did the night before, their going to find themselves out of job. No drug test is needed. You cannot hide that stuff for long.

 

There's a real slippery slope here that bothers me about this whole surveillance thing. In my younger days, I've submitted to drug tests. As I've gotten older, I'm with Brock and I'm not so certain why I should. Using this line of reasoning, I could put a tail on you to see if you are out late partying during the workweek, or tap your phone to see if you are soliciting prostitutes online, or whatever. It's one thing for me to look up your facebook page and see what it is you publically admit to doing. It's a whole different story to invade you privacy as a condition of employment.

[Mike Frasier Law]

Not to the derail this thread, but it's already there...

 

The 10th amendment to the constitution says otherwise. Federal law only supersedes state law where it is explicitly granted in the Constitution, not that anyone from either party actually reads it anymore. Jefferson Davis and the confederacy lost in the field of battle, not in a courtroom.

 

That's close but not quite right. The 10th amendment does reserve powers for the states and the people. But the constitution also contains the commerce clause - granting the feds the right to regulate anything affecting interstate commerce (which has been interpreted very, very broadly), and it contains the supremacy clause - stating that any time state and federal laws directly conflict, the federal law wins.

[twinsin17]

Let's hope Rosario and Hamburger don't spark up too good of a relationship or they may be forever jointed.

[diehardtwinsfan]

That's close but not quite right. The 10th amendment does reserve powers for the states and the people. But the constitution also contains the commerce clause - granting the feds the right to regulate anything affecting interstate commerce (which has been interpreted very, very broadly), and it contains the supremacy clause - stating that any time state and federal laws directly conflict, the federal law wins.

 

We can certainly argue the intent of the commerce clause, but let's just use a different scenario, if I grow pot in CO and sell (or just use it) it in CO, constitutionally, there's absolutely nothing that the Federal government can do about it... not that they see it that way.

 

And again, the supremacy clause is limited by the 10th amendment. The Federal government has no rights to overrule the states on issues that have not been granted them by the constitution.... not that they care, but that issue is completely different.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I'd say something about the players agreeing to this as a part of the CBA, but as we discovered in another thread, minor leaguers don't get a collective vote. There will be a lot of interesting CBA changes as this lawsuit that former minor leaguers have brought on works its way through. I could see this being a casualty too. It's kind of unfair to test only the minor leaguers for pot while people on the 40 man can smoke at will.

He still signed a contract and has an agent to help him understand it. If smoking pot was that important to him, why did he take the job? 20 years old though he may be, he made the decision knowingly and willfully to sign the contract and break it. It doesn't matter if he or I like it, or think it's just, he made a decision.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

We can certainly argue the intent of the commerce clause, but let's just use a different scenario, if I grow pot in CO and sell (or just use it) it in CO, constitutionally, there's absolutely nothing that the Federal government can do about it... not that they see it that way.

 

And again, the supremacy clause is limited by the 10th amendment. The Federal government has no rights to overrule the states on issues that have not been granted them by the constitution.... not that they care, but that issue is completely different.

(Totally derailed, sorry) If the FBI or Justice Dept thought they had jurisdiction, wouldn't there have been arrests by now? Sure there are ongoing lawsuits, but that's not jurisdiction, that's precedence.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

So I'm not alone here when I say that I've never had a hangover from drinking?

 

That's a true statement by the way, but the reality is that most people do get hung over from drinking, and many show up at work the next day. Personally, I think you should be judged on your performance. If a person keeps showing up hung over, or working off whatever he/she did the night before, their going to find themselves out of job. No drug test is needed. You cannot hide that stuff for long.

While this isn't the case, what if you're a surgeon, is pot on your own time ok then? Is it wrong if your employer tests then? Do you wait until someone dies to let the results speak for themselves? Rosario knowingly and willfully signed a contract, it's up to him to follow the contract.

[jimv2]

That's close but not quite right. The 10th amendment does reserve powers for the states and the people. But the constitution also contains the commerce clause - granting the feds the right to regulate anything affecting interstate commerce (which has been interpreted very, very broadly), and it contains the supremacy clause - stating that any time state and federal laws directly conflict, the federal law wins.

 

Thanks. I was going to write that, but you said it far more clearly than I would have. But as long as we're on this derailed thread, granted that interstate commerce includes almost everything, do you think that Federal law would apply in this case to a Colorado farmer who grows pot for his own personal use, and for use of other citizens of Colorado who smoke on his premises? (Really a theoretcial question, I think, since I can't imagine the Feds wasting time on a situation like this.)

[diehardtwinsfan]

While this isn't the case, what if you're a surgeon, is pot on your own time ok then? Is it wrong if your employer tests then? Do you wait until someone dies to let the results speak for themselves? Rosario knowingly and willfully signed a contract, it's up to him to follow the contract.

 

Again, the market will take care of this problem a lot easier than an employer. Doctors are a bit different here since technically they rent from the hospitals and aren't employed by them, but I get what you are trying to say. My issue is this... there's plenty of legal things you can do and illegal things you can do that can have the same effect. How is testing for pot OK but not for alcohol? I'd argue a hangover from alcohol is just as dangerous, yet where's the test? Or perhaps I simply stay out late each night and finish the party with a random stranger. Should we have the test for that even though me being up till 2 AM makes it real difficult to function at my 7:00 AM shift? There are lots of things I can do, illegally or not, that can make doing certain jobs difficult. Would you be OK with someone being assigned to monitor how late you are out, or how much alcohol you buy at the store?

[DocBauer]

On the drug portion of this thread, not saying what should or should not be legal, or will be, or debating the morality of alcohol or MJ. Honestly don't think that is the point.

 

Rosario, even at his young age, should be smart enough to realize the rules at this point, and the consequences, especially if caught and warned once already. And this is an employer concern/policy. My problem, however, is the severity of the penalty under the circumstances and the drug involved. Pot might be illegal, but he was tested for it, not caught with it, or caught selling it. Nor is it an enhancement drug. So to me the 50 games seems excessive as a "1st punishment" course of action.

 

On the field, his staying at 2B is ideal for now. As I have stated before, and has been re-stated here as well, his staying at 2B and continuing his development offers him and the Twins greater flexibility. If the now established ML Dozier could transition back to his original, lifelong position of SS, this opens an opportunity for Rosario at 2B. If not, it increases Rosario's trade value to another club at 2B. And if the Twins decide to transition him back to the OF, it should not only be a very easy transition back, but might allow him to continue to be a fill-in alternate at 2B.

 

As a further note, this young man can flat out hit. He can also run. Now whether or not he ever develops in to a consistently productive base stealer or not, speed on the base paths is a very good trait to have. Further, while the early power he showed has definitely lessened, he's also been aggressively promoted. I feel given time to settle in to an acceptable level, you will an increase in his power and extra base production overall.

[Brock Beauchamp]

He still signed a contract and has an agent to help him understand it. If smoking pot was that important to him, why did he take the job? 20 years old though he may be, he made the decision knowingly and willfully to sign the contract and break it. It doesn't matter if he or I like it, or think it's just, he made a decision.

 

Maybe I've missed it but I haven't seen anyone defend Rosario's decision to smoke pot, only that it's a bad policy to punish him for it in the first place.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Again, the market will take care of this problem a lot easier than an employer. Doctors are a bit different here since technically they rent from the hospitals and aren't employed by them, but I get what you are trying to say. My issue is this... there's plenty of legal things you can do and illegal things you can do that can have the same effect. How is testing for pot OK but not for alcohol? I'd argue a hangover from alcohol is just as dangerous, yet where's the test? Or perhaps I simply stay out late each night and finish the party with a random stranger. Should we have the test for that even though me being up till 2 AM makes it real difficult to function at my 7:00 AM shift? There are lots of things I can do, illegally or not, that can make doing certain jobs difficult. Would you be OK with someone being assigned to monitor how late you are out, or how much alcohol you buy at the store?

I have fired highly productive warehouse workers who came to work hung over because I and the company I worked for, valued the safety of the group over the production of one person. While I agree that the market will solve the problem, employers testing employees for drugs and alcohol is a market reaction. No employer can afford to find out from its customers or prospective employees what the ramifications are.

 

Remember, this is a union decision, it's the players that chose this as much as the owners. Should the employer, or the state, be a nanny? No, but then an employee, citizen, or participant shouldn't break contract or rules, but they do. Rosario knowingly and willingly broke his contract.

 

Rosario deserved to get suspended

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Maybe I've missed it but I haven't seen anyone defend Rosario's decision to smoke pot, only that it's a bad policy to punish him for it in the first place.

I think it's good policy to punish him, he broke the rules and the law. Many employers test for all kinds of substances, as they should have the right to do so. Especially union approved/negotiated contracts.

[Twins Twerp]

I see I missed a great constitution debate and would like to talk about California under the previous administration. Medical marijuana raids on "legal" distributors and growers would happen all the time. US Marshals or the federal police could raid these stores even though state law allowed for legal growth and use of pot. I think it works in CO now and WA soon because Obama and Holder do not care. Im guessing Hilary wont either so those people and new states that pass will be ok until at least 2024

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I understand, but if it is legal, should it trigger a suspension? What if you played for Colorado Springs or Tacoma and tested positive for MJ? You would be getting a suspension for using something you could buy in the corner store.

You ask a good question. I'm no doctor, but pot is prescribed in some instances for glaucoma treatment. I presume this is for improving eyesight in some way. Were it legal, there may be a reason to ban pot. There are legal OTC substances that are banned by MLB because they are PEDs or masking agents. It's plausible.

[70charger]

We can certainly argue the intent of the commerce clause, but let's just use a different scenario, if I grow pot in CO and sell (or just use it) it in CO, constitutionally, there's absolutely nothing that the Federal government can do about it... not that they see it that way.

 

And again, the supremacy clause is limited by the 10th amendment. The Federal government has no rights to overrule the states on issues that have not been granted them by the constitution.... not that they care, but that issue is completely different.

 

 

Speaking as another lawyer, you are absolutely right. Gonzales v. Raich says that if you grow pot in CO (CA, actually), from seeds that came from in-state, and use it in-state, you're engaging in interstate commerce.

 

And in that, the Supreme Court is laughably, ridiculously, less-common-sense-than-a-two-year-old WRONG.

 

And that about sums up Constitutional jurisprudence as it regards the commerce clause (and the fourteenth amendment) over the last century plus.

 

It's only the law of the land if you simultaneously accept the premise that the Supreme Court could interpret the first amendment in such a way as to deprive us of our freedom of speech if they one day decide to warp the Constitution that way.

[freshinthehouse]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Has Twinsdaily been infested with so many liberals that marijuana is now considered benign? Well, let me tell you something, Cheech, that stuff will rot your brain just like any cheap street narcotic. Science has proven it. I'd recommend that all of you lay of the devil's lettuce for a few days, sober up, and then watch this documentary some psychologists made a few years back that shows the true dangers of "mary jane."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54xWo7ITFbg

[zchrz]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Has Twinsdaily been infested with so many liberals that marijuana is now considered benign? Well, let me tell you something, Cheech, that stuff will rot your brain just like any cheap street narcotic. Science has proven it. I'd recommend that all of you lay of the devil's lettuce for a few days, sober up, and then watch this documentary some psychologists made a few years back that shows the true dangers of "mary jane."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54xWo7ITFbg

 

And there ya go, ethnics use marijuana, we should probably deport Rosario asap there are white women he could be corrupting.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think it's good policy to punish him, he broke the rules and the law. Many employers test for all kinds of substances, as they should have the right to do so. Especially union approved/negotiated contracts.

 

I'm still not sure why anyone thinks it's a good thing that they're testing for substances that aren't any more dangerous than alcohol, are becoming increasingly popular (and legal) with mainstream America, and do not enhance performance in the slightest bit.

 

And it's pretty hard to call the system MiLB players unionize under "negotiated", considering that MiLB players don't have a seat at the table during negotiations.

 

You'll also note that MLB players are NOT tested for marijuana use. Funny how that works. The guys who get a seat in negotiations don't get tested for smoking weed.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I'm still not sure why anyone thinks it's a good thing that they're testing for substances that aren't any more dangerous than alcohol, are becoming increasingly popular (and legal) with mainstream America, and do not enhance performance in the slightest bit.

 

And it's pretty hard to call the system MiLB players unionize under "negotiated", considering that MiLB players don't have a seat at the table during negotiations.

 

You'll also note that MLB players are NOT tested for marijuana use. Funny how that works. The guys who get a seat in negotiations don't get tested for smoking weed.

Funny, according to the MLB Players Association, they are tested for THC

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf

Maybe MiLB baseball players don't have a vote, but they are protected and legislated under the same collective bargaining agreement as the MLB players and choose to enter into the agreement contractually under their own free will.

I don't care if pot is legal or not, if a person enters a contractual obligation, it's up to them to hold up their responsibility. You'll notice several legal and prescriptive substances in the list of drugs of abuse such as synthetic THC and Codeine.

Whether pot should be tested for, it was the players association that voted to approve the contract under drug of abuse, not PED. It's a safety and addiction issue contractually.

Employers should have the right to protect themselves, their properties, and their customers, as well as the players should have the right to collectively bargain player contracts that are in the best interest of the players association. For all we know, it was the players association that bargained this issue into the contract. I think if the players wanted alcohol to be a tested substance of abuse, it should be included as well.

 

On the freedoms and liberties issue, I think pot should be legal. It's so prevalent and socially accepted that it's unreasonable to treat it differently than alcohol.

[twinstalker]

Never understood why people do not give a chance to Polanco at SS. He is a SS for the time being and much more valuable there than 2B.

 

It's possible he could be a SS, but every remark I've read by evaluators is that his arm and range aren't there. His errors are a result of his relative inability to get in proper position to field the ball, often followed by a hurried throw from an arm that can't make up for his range deficiency.

 

That's a paraphrasing of all I've read and heard. I think the Twins are trying to determine if he can make the proper improvements fielding the ball. If so, the throwing errors should decline. I haven't yet heard anybody say that it looks like he could stick.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Funny, according to the MLB Players Association, they are tested for THC

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf

 

I phrased that poorly. An MLB player can be tested for a drug of abuse but they're not randomly tested. There has to be a cause for testing.

 

From Wiki:

 

Testing for drugs of abuse is not administered randomly, but on a basis of reasonable cause. If one of the HPAC panel members has evidence that a player has used, possessed, or sold banned substances in the last 12 months, they call a conference and discuss the evidence with the other members. If a majority vote to test the suspected player is reached then testing will take place no more than 48 hours later.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_drug_policy

 

Anyway, I don't think our opinions are terribly different on this. Rosario was stupid for smoking pot, knowing he would be tested. I simply do not believe MLB should be testing for drugs of abuse, particularly not testing MLB players for it (who have representation in the unions) but testing MiLB players for it (who have no representation).

 

Really, this all boils down to the fact that I believe MiLB players should have union representation. It's not right to have a group of workers playing under a contract they had no hand in negotiating.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I phrased that poorly. An MLB player can be tested for a drug of abuse but they're not randomly tested. There has to be a cause for testing.

 

From Wiki:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_drug_policy

 

Anyway, I don't think our opinions are terribly different on this. Rosario was stupid for smoking pot, knowing he would be tested. I simply do not believe MLB should be testing for drugs of abuse, particularly not testing MLB players for it (who have representation in the unions) but testing MiLB players for it (who have no representation).

 

Really, this all boils down to the fact that I believe MiLB players should have union representation. It's not right to have a group of workers playing under a contract they had no hand in negotiating.

I could not agree more that minor leaguers should be represented directly at the bargaining table. It would be better for the entire baseball economy for drafted players to be treated more like international free agents though it would probably increase ticket prices.

 

The difference between MiLB and MLB testing policy, is MLB has the Unionized mechanism for determining probable cause, where the minor leaguers do not, so it is random, however both have the same mandated follow up random tests that Rosario fell under this time.

 

Where I disagree is, the players negotiated the contract, and we don't know how the drug of abuse clause entered into the agreement. It may be that the players wanted (or still do want) drugs of abuse to be tested for the safety and integrity of the players and the association. They may be protecting themselves in ways that other sports are not. I support the collective bargaining process even as an anti-union, pro management person because I do feel that unions exist for very important reasons, and the process does work in those instances.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Where I disagree is, the players negotiated the contract, and we don't know how the drug of abuse clause entered into the agreement. It may be that the players wanted (or still do want) drugs of abuse to be tested for the safety and integrity of the players and the association. They may be protecting themselves in ways that other sports are not. I support the collective bargaining process even as an anti-union, pro management person because I do feel that unions exist for very important reasons, and the process does work in those instances.

 

It's possible the players negotiated it into the CBA but I find it incredibly unlikely that they were proponents of this testing.

 

If they were, they would have included drug of abuse testing with the random PED testing of MLB players. The owners wouldn't have negotiated that out of the testing process if the players wanted it in. The owners have incentive to keep their players clean for obvious reasons. The players, not so much.

[Mike Frasier Law]

Speaking as another lawyer, you are absolutely right. Gonzales v. Raich says that if you grow pot in CO (CA, actually), from seeds that came from in-state, and use it in-state, you're engaging in interstate commerce.

 

And in that, the Supreme Court is laughably, ridiculously, less-common-sense-than-a-two-year-old WRONG.

 

And that about sums up Constitutional jurisprudence as it regards the commerce clause (and the fourteenth amendment) over the last century plus.

 

I'm no constitutional scholar, but if I remember right, there have only been a handful of cases where the Supreme Court found a particular activity NOT to affect interstate commerce (guns free school zones act and the plurality decision on the affordable care act off the top of my head). It's not common sense at all, but it is how the constitution has been interpreted for quite a long time.

 

Anyway, baseball!