There are rules, and then there are rules

They can “have the health, recovery, and well-being of Josh Hamilton at the forefront of their minds” and still have made a strong statement about not tolerating his behavior. Not necessarily a suspension, but something. Not nothing. Or at least nothing public (we don’t know what they may have said or done behind the scenes).

feel any need to take issue with it any more than others already have.

But you have repeatedly mentioned a “zero tolerance” policy without further expounding upon the nature of said policy- partially because I’m sure neither yourself nor the rest of us know exactly what that policy might be.

Here’s something about said policy that I gleaned from the mlb.com article regarding the incident though, and a link to the story itself:

Hamilton, while in the Tampa Bay Rays organization, missed 3 1/2 years because of his problems with cocaine, alcohol and other illegal substances. He was reinstated on June 2, 2006, under strict rules of conduct that included being drug tested three times a week. He was not prohibited from using alcohol, although that was a severe part of his past problems.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090808&content_id=6316112&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp&c_id=tex

If that’s true, then there was no immediate necessity or recourse for disciplinary action. Just thought that was worth pointing out, since it seems your main point is that there is hypocrisy on the part of the organization not necessarily to vilify Hamilton for his relapse and poor judgment.

to make a blanket policy independent of the circumstances. I know it’s fashionable for schools to have “zero tolerance” policies around weapons, or drugs, or bullying, on the basis that “how could it ever be justified?” but then a kid who has never been in any trouble brings a really cool hunting knife his dad just got, to show his classmates, not thinking about it being a weapon and…? (This actually happened at my school.)

In the case of Hamilton’s setback, I think it’s probably relevant that the incident took place in the off-season. The Rangers probably meant “during the season” (and I know it’s gray because players were already working out in camp, but it wasn’t even during spring training) — certainly had Hamilton gone drinking at a bar in his hometown around Thanksgiving, the Rangers wouldn’t have necessarily felt the need to get involved.

Anyway, I agree that the problem isn’t the way the Rangers handled it, it’s proclaiming “ZERO TOLERANCE!!!!111” when that’s not what you mean — and it’s not what you should mean.

Is Tempe the only place on Earth where the kind of sluts that want to triple-team a baseball player exist?

they’d help him get the help he needs?

I think this the blanket policy was more for players who are looking to ‘have a little good time’ as opposed to someone who is suffering from a problem.

I guess I didn’t realize you were a professional addiction counselor.

but I think there’s a difference between a guy falling off the wagon and reverting to being an active user (and all that entails), on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a guy screwing up once and then immediately recognizing what he did, calling the people close to him who are hurt by his addictive behavior, apologizing to them and getting back to work dealing with his addiction.

I mean, it’s not like they toss you out of AA for going on a bender, AFAIK. You need to deal with it, and admit
that you screwed up and apologize to people you’ve hurt, etc., but if AA doesn’t consider it enabling alcoholism to tolerate recovering alcoholics who screw up from time to time, I don’t see how the Rangers are enabling Hamilton’s abuse of alcohol here.

I agree with you about your rolling you eyes on the Rangers’ “zero tolerance” policy, but from my perspective that’s because ZT is just PR from the start.