Everybody's already heard this story, right? America loves famous people, loves drugs, and falls all over itself when famous people do drugs. Shouldn't be long before the media starts cutting famous people with knives and forks and branches they pick up just to prove that "they bleed like normal people bleed!"
Anyway, there are a number of jokes here in questionable taste that could be made. Josh Hamilton jokes. Jokes about how Ron Washington physically looks the part. Jokes about how people generally don't start dabbling in their 50s. Jokes at the Rangers' expense, jokes about how running that team can drive a man to drugs. If I really gave myself a little time I'm sure I could think of more, because I'm always astonished by my brain's capacity to function like that of a complete asshole.
But, to me, if there's any take-home message here, aside from the reminder that people make mistakes, even when they're 57, it's this: managing a baseball team is hard. It's hard work. You might get stressed out at your job, but eventually, you get to leave it. And if you take your work home with you, eventually, you get to sleep. A manager doesn't get breaks. He doesn't get days off, or opportunities to sip coffee on the patio. A manager is consumed by his work, and this doesn't even begin to address any stress he might be dealing with in his personal life. Ron Washington manages a baseball team, and he's married, and his body is getting old.
Ron Washington has a lot going on. More, I imagine, than we could ever know. This, of course, is all speculation on my part, and I could be totally off-base, but I wouldn't be surprised if Washington got to the All-Star Break, recognized a limited window of opportunity to unwind a little bit, and seized it by the balls. That he was so up-front about it before results came back suggests that he was aware he made a mistake and doesn't do this all the time. And, in the end, that renders this sort of an insignificant story. The only lesson to be learned here is that maybe next time Washington should smoke weed like everybody else.
0 recs | 83 comments
Snorting coke is a weird way to unwind.
Matthew - March 17, 2010
Beat me to it.
Goose - March 17, 2010
Snorting isn't the only way to take it in
And it’s not really that weird. Unusual, but not weird.
Jeff Sullivan - March 17, 2010
You're ruining my joke
Matthew - March 17, 2010
In protest I predict you delay the podcast post
Jeff Sullivan - March 17, 2010
Dammit
Now it’s going to look like the two are related if I do instead of me just being extra busy. I’ll just have to work harder to get it up on time.
Matthew - March 17, 2010
Oh! You tricksy son of a bitch!
Matthew - March 17, 2010
Owned
Jeff Sullivan - March 17, 2010
As long as it is up around 4
I’d like to listen to it on the bus ride home.
arbeck77 - March 17, 2010
A better impetus could not be found
pdb - March 17, 2010
Your prediction will be wrong because you made it public
Dewey N - March 17, 2010
Aw nuts
Jeff Sullivan - March 17, 2010
Yeah take it like a bitch
Dewey N - March 17, 2010
More like enwind
lemonverbena - March 17, 2010
It is incredibly difficult to test positive for cocaine.
You have to be tested within about 16-20 hours of doing it.
Sec 108 - March 17, 2010
Maybe a side effect of cocaine use is wanting to take drug tests.
Matthew - March 17, 2010
It's the rush.
JonBBT - March 17, 2010
Depends on the threshold of the test, and the amount you use
If you are a light user, you should be clear from any left in your system after 3 days. If you are a heavy user, it could actually be weeks.
arbeck77 - March 17, 2010
Three weeks would never happen. Ever.
Why? Because in my experience people who use narcotics also tend to know how to flush them quickly. It is a very strange game they play, but they do the drugs knowing full well they get tested regularly and I think they enjoy the game.
Sec 108 - March 17, 2010
You can't "flush" them
You can drink something that masks them for 4-5 hours or so, which is plenty of time to pass a test. And that only works for a urinalysis.
And is it really your contention that people who use illegal drugs enjoy the challenge of being tested, w/ a positive result being the loss of a job? Really?
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
Are you familiar with the craziness that goes with addiction?
Sec 108 - March 17, 2010
Yes. Known quite a few.
You sound like you got your opinions from a bad afternoon special.
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
Hello and welcome to LL.
You do not know me. You have three comments here and two are ripping on me. You might want to chill out a bit. I am 38 years old and haven’t seen an afternoon special in nearly 24 years. I have however known far too many addicts in my lifetime.
Just for your information, the vast majority of people I have known to have cocaine issues fit into three categories. Entertainment (mostly musicians), medical professionals and lawyers. Medical professionals and lawyers are often afflicted with a god complex that makes their addictions rather interesting. Yes, they do in fact get a charge off of fooling their bosses, clients, wives and basically anyone else. It feeds into the superiority complex they have. It is not unusual.
In fact it is almost as unusual as a post about cocaine use in the Rangers clubhouse.
Sec 108 - March 17, 2010
He has more comments than that
The other ones were pretty annoying as well
Graham MacAree - March 17, 2010
He posts regularly at LSB
so he has that going for him.
seattle_since_81 - March 17, 2010
It would probably be better if he stayed there
Graham MacAree - March 17, 2010
You really know how to hold a grudge
Wasn’t that like 3-4 years ago?
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
His profile said three. Never trust SBN.
Sec 108 - March 17, 2010
This isn't helpful
Matthew - March 17, 2010
Hello, Sec 108
There’s no need to take offense. I count one “rip,” not 2, if you can really call the afternoon special comment a “rip.” And I’ve spent a good deal of time reading LOL over the years, and from what I’ve seen, my comments were well below the sarcasm/abrasiveness standard typically practiced around here, which is the way it should be. We’re men, after all, if we were supposed to get bent out of shape about every caustic barb lobbed our way, we’d have vaginas.
The first comment I made directed at you was in response to this:
This is egregiously false. I have no idea where you got that from, but you were misinformed.
Then you categorically stated that “… people who use narcotics also tend to know how to flush them quickly.” This is also false, since most illegal recreational drugs, coke included, cannot be flushed from the system.
In that same comment, you essentially posit that people who could lose their career over a failed drug test actually still prefer that the testing is in place, because the thrill of getting over on people outweighs their love of their livelihood/job security. I find that pretty ridiculous and counterintuitive, but obviously this is a matter that can’t be proven. We can agree to disagree on that one if you want.
And then there’s this:
That’s the type of cliche-driven stuff I’m talking about w/ the afternoon special snark. You can see that, right?
Regardless, I’m not some Halohaven moron who came over to be obnoxious and scoreboard and flame the site. You made some false claims, and I chimed in. I’m not trying to be a dick, and I’m certainly “chilled out” on the subject. This is just how I speak.
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
Thank you for the response. I have a few comments back.
Yes we are snarky here, but that is something we tend to reserve for people we actually know. Generally I limit my rudest comments here for the people I know best because they understand who I am away from my keyboard.
As for the drug testing comments I definitely did not feel the need to go into detail, but you asked for it. I graduated many years ago with a professional chemistry degree. One of my closest friends from the program runs a drug testing facility. There are a wide variety of ways to test for drugs but almost across the board companies and government agencies are only willing to pay for the cheapest version of it.
Due to that choice, while my comments were not 100% accurate they are accurate in regards to the tests that people actually have to take. Yes, “flush” is the wrong word to use there. Mask might be better. My friend said once that about 80% of positive tests are for weed, 15% for alcohol and only 5% for narcotics. Could they catch more narcotic users by using more expensive testing? Yes, but they do not.
As for the last point, that is in fact not cliche driven but rather anecdotal evidence. I firmly grasp the flimsy nature of anecdotal evidence, but you have provided absolutely zero information to show why my viewpoint is incorrect. It also plays into the fact that you have no idea who I am or why I have known the people I am referring to. Do you work with addicts? What exactly is giving you the idea that my comment is incorrect?
There is no afternoon special quality to what I said. I have watched narcotic addiction destroy some rather successful people. Yes, the life I have lived regrettably exposed me to a drug filled underbelly of society and I know it far better than most people. Until you give me something tangible to show me you know anything about it then I will continue to assume you are merely being contrary.
Sec 108 - March 18, 2010
That's totally false
3-4 days is the window.
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
It seems to depend on the type of testing.
Not to be argumentative.
MT Olson - March 17, 2010
Yeah, you wouldn't want to be rude.
Teej - March 17, 2010
Read it
Can you point me to the part where they claim it is out of your system in 16-20 hours? Cuz, I sure didn’t see it.
To be clear, I was talking about urinalysis, which is the predominant form of testing. That article simply stated that coke could be detected in hair samples for much longer, which is a real no-shitter. I even allude to that above.
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
Wait, why are managers being tested?
waldo rojas - March 17, 2010
Why not?
Jeff Sullivan - March 17, 2010
Who cares?
waldo rojas - March 17, 2010
Employers do.
Wilder. - March 17, 2010
I would imagine that the Rangers organization would want to know.
MFAN - March 17, 2010
I bet they would prefer to not have known this.
My impression is that generally employers don’t care what their employees do in their free time, as long as they are not bringing it to work them. Testing usually has to do with insurance requirements.
waldo rojas - March 17, 2010
How can you be an MLB manager and not "bring it to work with you" if you're using coke?
As Jeff said above, he is always on the job. He doesn’t go home every day after work. If he’s using coke, he’s likely doing it in a hotel that they paid for
tootthekazoo - March 17, 2010
Considering that he's in a very public position...
The Rangers deal very much in public relations, as does any major corporation. If I were in a managerial/directorial position of a major corporation, I’d want to know the instant anything negative happened to any of my personnel so that I could start planning a way to handle the situation.
It’s not that far of a logical leap for the average fan to go from, “Their manager was doing drugs, and the front office didn’t know?” to “What else don’t they know?” That’s a gigantic can of worms that can bring into question the entire organization’s decision-making ability.
jwiscarson - March 17, 2010
Consider what happened in this case.
The PR nightmare here is not that Ron W. used drugs, but that he tested positive for drugs and the results became public. Had there been no testing, there would have been no PR hit and this likely would never have become an issue. Assuming he’s not a cluck.
waldo rojas - March 17, 2010
The issue here is that their manager is doing coke
The front office would want to know that. The manager oversees a very expensive group of players and a substance addiction would be quite detrimental to his job.
ermac - March 17, 2010
No, the issue is that he tested positive and the test result became public.
My point is that if as long as his useage was not affecting his job performance, it is the random testing itself doing the harm here. To everyone, including RW, the Rangers, and MLB as a brand.
And to what end? If his useage was affecting his performance (showing up late/high, poor judgement, smelly), don’t you think that would have been caught and followed up on by mgmt?
waldo rojas - March 17, 2010
A test won't always be the thing that becomes public
The Josh Hamilton pictures are a great example. Would it have been better for the club to find out through a drug test that their manager did coke, or through pictures showing up somewhere? I don’t see how it is a bad thing that managers are being tested. From what I’ve seen, random testing helps to clean up a sport not harm it.
seattle_since_81 - March 17, 2010
This is the first time I've seen the word "cluck" used in a setting that is not an Eazy E song.
Awesome.
katal - March 17, 2010
I see.
I misunderstood your perspective — I was arguing from a standpoint where management can’t do a whole lot about the testing that’s already in place. Don’t get me wrong: I think drug testing in this form isn’t exactly productive.
I made my case mostly because I don’t think the Rangers can really do a whole lot here. If they were a corporation operating on a (proverbial) island, I’d agree with you. Since they’re a franchise without a whole lot of say in this particular matter, I think they responded appropriately.
It’s impossible for any of us to say whether this was negatively affecting his personal ability to do his job, and to what end the Rangers (or any group of managers in a similar position) could determine that his performance changes were due to drug use before requesting that he take a drug test and/or submit to a stint in rehab.
jwiscarson - March 18, 2010
Sports is not the only profession where people have to be drug tested.
Wilder. - March 17, 2010
That didn't answer his question
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
You obviously don't understand the point I made with that statement.
Wilder. - March 17, 2010
The point you made wasn't hard to grasp
Can you answer his question or not?
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
The answer is in the point.
Are you that dense?
Wilder. - March 17, 2010
That's it?
Everybody’s doing it?
I understand why bus drivers and pilots and accountants and the like get tested. Explain to me why off field baseball personnel get tested. What is the rationale behind that?
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
Because they're part of the clubhouse, or in Washington's case, are in control of the clubhouse
And a drug user is more likely to be tolerant of drug use from others, would be the rationale for it I guess. It’s an environment thing,
OlSalty - March 17, 2010
You are that dense.
The point is not “everybody is doing it.” The point is employers have every reason to make sure their employees are competent at their jobs. If you are doing illegal things at home, it can and does effect job performance.
Wilder. - March 17, 2010
Not to defend an overly argumentative Ranger fan, but it was an obtuse way to make your point.
I wouldn’t consider someone dense for not interpreting it correctly.
waldo rojas - March 17, 2010
He's picking a fight with everyone.
No holds barred for a troll.
Wilder. - March 17, 2010
Calm down please.
There’s no need for you to insult people. There are mods in place to handle trolls.
Matthew - March 17, 2010
I think the Seahawks disaster is getting to me.
Wilder. - March 17, 2010
Ugh. By everybody, I meant employers, obviously, not employees
That point should have been clear with my bus driver/pilot/accountant question. It is precisely this lemming like acceptance of invasions to personal privacy that I’m questioning.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. So, I repeat, please explain to me how a baseball manager doing some bumps over the all star break effects his job performance?
Brian Thomas - March 17, 2010
Uh, yeah, I know what you meant by everybody. Still not the point.
Drug testing has nothing to do with the invasion of personal privacy. Drug testing is a tool for employers to evaluate a person’s competency and trust.
A baseball manager is a position of trust. If he is doing illegal things, how can his players trust his decision making? How can the his employers?
The question should be regarding this issue: why was this information made public? This issue should have been kept between MLB, the Texas Rangers, and Ron Washington. Now that is a matter of personal privacy.
Wilder. - March 17, 2010
From
This article
Eyeball Kid - March 17, 2010
Alas, that doesn't include Selig
I’d love to know what he seems to be on. Other than multiple martinis.
wandergeist - March 17, 2010
Selig?
I think he’s a lich.
Paul AB - March 17, 2010
I am just glad it is not PED's
I just couldn’t stand to have the integirity of the game questioned by the use of managers using performance enhancer’s. Wait…maybe coke is a PED for a manager.
Rich Langford - March 17, 2010
Damn! sp integrity
Rich Langford - March 17, 2010
A few weeks ago I thought both Jon Daniels and Ron Washington were old white men
Huh
Dewey N - March 17, 2010
Ron Washington and Wak have different ideas of clubhouse chemistry.
svart aske - March 17, 2010
This thread is really making me want to break the no politics rule
chaney - March 17, 2010
The only people who care, are the people who have never done drugs.
Leave the cool people alone.
Scott71267 - March 17, 2010
Where's the John McLaren Did Suck post
and the Bill Bavasi Did Suck & Blow for that matter?
Janic - March 17, 2010
Hands up everybody who thought the foul lines were chalk!
Ron Washington and I can’t be the only ones surprised.
wandergeist - March 17, 2010
Well this pretty much guarentees he's out at season's end.
We humans sure do have a way with f’n up a good thing.
Omerta - March 17, 2010
If he makes it through the week, he'll probably be ok.
waldo rojas - March 17, 2010
I think he'll be fine
He admitted this to the Rangers last July when the test came back positive from everything that I have read. Since they didn’t can him then or at the end of the season, I don’t see why they would do anything now just because it became public.
seattle_since_81 - March 17, 2010
Yeah, he's not going anywhere.
Unfortunately for those of us in Texas who can’t stand him.
Our players love him and I think our front office fears some kind of a reprisal if they upset that “chemistry”. Otherwise he would’ve been sacked in 2008 when we went like 0-25 in April, or somewhere else along the line for simply being terrible at his job.
For our front office this is probably just old news that had already been dealt with internally last year and wasn’t supposed to come out in the media thanks to MLB’s confidentiality agreement.
LSJ - March 18, 2010
You know its funny
managers/players get DUIs, and it seems to not make as big of a dent as recreational use of drugs, despite the danger posed to everyone else.
Ballard Erik - March 17, 2010
Probably because the average person drinks,
but the average person doesn’t use cocaine. Unless you’re Dr.Rockso.
Thingray - March 17, 2010
Good point. I read something about Tony LaRussa getting arrested overnight for a DUI (fell asleep at the wheel at a stoplight), and he got a standing O the next day because every pro-Cardinals media outlet came to his defense.
Disgusting.
Decatur - March 17, 2010
It's hard to imagine that the Rangers didn't know about this sooner
We all knew something was wrong he got in that slap fight with Charlie Murphy.
Jordan of Boise - March 17, 2010
They knew about it last July
Washington admitted it to them and the commissioners office before the test results were known. It was just now leaked to the press.
seattle_since_81 - March 17, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.