Ron Washington: Coke Is It

What evidence is there to suggest that Washington is lying other than your own perception? Len Bias died the first time he tried cocaine why is it an absolute truth that Washington did coke more than once?

Somehow people who are not quick to ignore Big Ben's story, have no problem dismissing Washington's explanation based on nothing more than speculation. Please reconcile.

 

Waylon and OOP, it doesn't matter now. Washington offered to step down, the Rangers said no and will have his back as well as Hamilton's. The Rangers will have to deal with the blowback of the "blackmail" attempt and Washington staying straight.

Whatever happens from this point on, it'll be on the Rangers if one of them slip up again.

 

Love it that Waylon's using the "It didn't hurt anybody" reasoning. Awesome.

 

Two completely different situations. Do we have actual proof that Roethlisberger has ever sexually assaulted a woman? No. Do we have proof that Ron Washington used cocaine? Yes. Try again. Do better next time.

Do we really know that Len Bias had never tried cocaine before the dose that killed him? Was that ever proven?

Washington is not some kid like Bias was. He is a 57-year-old man, one with an admitted history of using other illegal drugs. Like Waylon, you really need a better bullshit detector.

 

So its based solely on the BS-dar? Okay, I thought you wanted facts. The only fact we know is that Washington did it once because that' what he said.

Do we know what Bias did? The only facts I have ever seen is that no one saw him do it before. For that I accept it at face value.

Proof of Big Ben? He admits he had sexual relations with her. He admits he was there. Again, at this point its pure speculation.

I disagree, its the same situation, you are purely speculating because there are no facts at this point.

 

It's now out that Washington admitted today to smoking weed and doing amphetamines as a player.

 

Again, do we have any proof that Roethlisberger has ever sexually assaulted a woman? No.

Do we have proof that Ron Washington used cocaine? Yes.

I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to comprehend. I have some serious doubts about Roethlisberger, but right now there is no proof that he did anything illegal even once. With Washington, on the other hand, we have a failed drug test and an admission of guilt.

And no, this is not based solely on BS-dar. That's a bullshit assertion on your part. I'm just saying that your bullshit detector is faulty as hell if you believe Washington at this point because we know for a fact that he used cocaine and we know for a fact that he used marijuana and amphetamines in the past.

You tried to pass off the idea that Bias was killed by cocaine the first time he used it as fact. It isn't fact. It is a widely-held belief, but not a fact. And it is a hell of a lot more likely that somebody would die from a drug the first time they use it, when perhaps they don't know what they are doing, than for somebody to happen to get tested the first time. Both are extremely unlikely, but the comparison to Bias doesn't hold up.

 

So the question I have (which has not been asked or answered anywhere that I've read about this) is:

Are managers routinely subject to testing? Really? I mean, was he on parole for something, or ...?

Where's the value in that? Do GMs, trainers, marketing people, office staff, etc. have to give a sample as well?

 

Take one look at Ron Washington, at age 57.

Knowing that he admitted to snorting coke once... he looks like a guy who is "weathered" enough to have had a "party past".

Shoot, take it back to 1989:



Looking at THIS... you telling me last summer was his FIRST time with coke?

 

Couple things for clarity and then I'm moving on.

(1) Do I think that it was really the first time he used coke, at age 57? No, of course not. But the fact that he hasn't failed a test since at least shows he wasn't an addict or a regular user.

(2) Could they have fired him? Yes. And that would have been OK, too. But OOP is arguing that it was "idiotic" to keep him at all, and I'm just not convinced of that. Unless you have a strict policy otherwise, I think it's OK to handle these things on a case-by-case basis. This is the guy's livelihood and a large part of his identity. Firing him would have taken all of that away, and left this as his life's legacy. That's a heavy burden to carry if you're the GM or owner who has to pull that trigger.

I'm glad, however, that YGBFKM chimed in with his usual brilliance, which typically consists of implying that another poster is an idiot in one sentence or less, with nothing to back that assertion up.

 

There is a large difference between firing him and accepting his resignation. He offered. They should have taken it. It was idiotic not to. And if you don't believe that it was his first time using, then you are admitting that he is publicly lying about his drug use, making it that much worse. And by bringing in his clean tests since, you are using information that the team did not have when Washington offered to resign, which is intellectually dishonest.

 

OOP, I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are in this thread. As usual, you've dug yourself into stupid hole and can't get out.

Industries both public and private across the United States have for the past 30 years used Employee Assistance Programs with tremendous success, and they have saved countless peoples' lives. A first offense, like Washington's, is invariably handled in exactly this way -- increased testing and counseling.

The only shame involved in Washington's case is that the confidentiality of the EAP was compromised and now the man (a wonderful, thoughtful guy and a terrific baseball coach, according to everyone that's ever played for him) is dealing with the issue publicly as well as privately.