It Takes One to Throw One (Out of Baseball)

A one-year suspension for Josh Hamilton would be counterproductive. (via Keith Allison)

A one-year suspension for Josh Hamilton would be counterproductive. (via Keith Allison)

Upon learning last month that Josh Hamilton had relapsed on cocaine and alcohol, I braced for the coming deluge of articles and onslaught of on-air commentary. Major news stories involving addiction are like major news stories involving quantum physics: most journalists, though certainly well-intending, simply don’t have the background to adequately cover the subject matter.

The problem is, the only ones who realize this are addicts, like me.

To take a moment to qualify: I am a recovering addict and regular contributor to TheFix.com, a sober lifestyle website. I have been clean and sober for more than three years and, for nearly as long, have been wincing at the uninformed positions taken by journalists with no personal experience or medical credentials concerning drug and alcohol abuse.

It isn’t really their fault – because they are, unknowingly, trying to accomplish the near-impossible. Like no other disease, addiction is a takes-one-to-know-one affliction; when combined with the proliferation of online sports coverage and the need to fill limitless hours of airtime on 24/7 sports talk radio stations, the result is a wide swath of disparate assumptions, opinions and judgments that are, to varying degrees, either incomplete or flat-out incorrect.

They simply don’t know an addict’s mind, and – trust me – they don’t want to. Fortunately, most people don’t feel the illicit, illogical urge to drink and drug despite full knowledge of its vastly elevated – and potentially fatal – personal cost. But people like Josh Hamilton do. And before this starts to sound like a pity party, know this: we don’t want medals for our struggles, we just don’t want misinformation – unintended or otherwise – spread about our disease. Because what you don’t know can hurt us.

Case in point: On Thursday, news broke that a four-person MLB panel is currently split over whether to suspend Hamilton for the entirety of the 2015 season. Wrapped up in all of this is whether Hamilton should enter into a long-term (which generally means multi-month) rehabilitation clinic.

Both of these possible penalties are utterly ridiculous, and show the same lack of insight into the nature of addiction echoed in the mainstream media. And without proper background in addiction issues, it’s impossible to make an accurate assessment of Josh Hamilton’s personal history.

For starters, let’s dispel any myth – one that, thankfully, has been spread only by the most bloviating of broadcasters – that cocaine in the hands of an addict is in any way a performance-enhancing drug. Josh Hamilton didn’t use drugs to improve his baseball career. In fact, quite the opposite is true: an addict knows he is severely damaging himself but – for an intrinsic reason to which only fellow addicts can truly relate – simply can’t stop to save his own skin. This is especially true of people who, like Hamilton, have everything to live for. This was an act of destruction, not of deception. So please, let’s stop the A-Rod PED comparisons.

Next, let’s look at Hamilton’s history as an addict. He’s admitted to drinking alcohol a few times since 2009, but alcohol, though potentially lethal to an alcoholic like Hamilton, isn’t illegal and therefore can’t be taken into consideration when determining league-sanctioned consequences.

With regard to drug use, Hamilton had officially been free of cocaine for nearly a decade. Not bad for a man who, on his own admission, once pawned his wife’s wedding ring to buy cocaine and, in a separate six-week time frame, spent approximately $100,000 on crack. (A Los Angeles Times article from February 2013 details several of his addiction-fueled escapades, ones that make his redemption all the more unlikely and, for addicts like myself, inspiring.)

A decade is a very significant amount of consecutive clean time. Even considering his sporadic alcohol abuse, Hamilton has shown that he is capable of putting together years of consecutive sobriety and that, when he does slip, cocaine is very rarely involved. That detail, too, is important, because cocaine addicts generally use alcohol as a stepping stone to cocaine relapse. For cocaine addicts, bars are typically pit stops en route to the main event; that Hamilton has reached this undesirable destination only once in 10 years is a sign of his overall commitment to recovery.

Considering this, long-term rehab isn’t the answer. Addicts who have accomplished such lengthy stretches of clean time aren’t going to learn anything new in a rehab facility. In Hamilton’s case, rehab would be more of a “timeout,” a safeguard from further relapse where he can take a deep breath and prepare to recommence his recovery. To this end, anything longer than a few weeks is redundant, and would serve only to delay rehab’s intended result: the ability to stay clean and sober in the real world rather than a sterile facility where your every move is monitored.

Anyone can stay sober under lock and key. To put it in baseball terms, long-term rehab for someone with Hamilton’s level of sober experience would be like sending a slumping All-Star down to Single-A. It’s an overreaction, and it’s unhelpful.

So what consequences, then, should befall Josh Hamilton? Certainly something, of course. Cocaine use is both illegal and a violation of MLB’s banned substances policies. Addicts aren’t responsible for their disease, but they are responsible for their actions.

A Hardball Times Update
Goodbye for now.

All things considered, a suspension of about a month seems both fair and, for Hamilton, healthy. Assessing the situation with the help of an addict’s mindset (though without, admittedly, being privy to the situation’s full details), a reasonable outcome would entail Hamilton spending a few weeks in rehab and, from there, getting right back to the structure of baseball activities. Because more than almost anything, addicts coming off a relapse need structure.

Unless he is in really rough shape – and judging by initial reports it doesn’t seem like he is – the healthy routine of a long baseball season provides the sort of self-esteem building structure that reinforces a sober lifestyle. Sitting around for a full year is not a healthy situation for an addict; I know that from personal experience when, upon losing a job back in my hard-drinking days, I quickly went from simply unemployed to wholly unemployable. For addicts, inaction breeds insanity.

For a league looking to start the tenure of a new commissioner off on the right foot, subjecting Josh Hamilton to an onerously long suspension falls in the same old misguided social practice of treating addicts like criminals instead of those suffering from an incurable, albeit treatable, disease. So long as Hamilton shows recovery from his relapse and wishes to continue playing, he should be welcomed back into baseball with open arms, hearts, and minds.


Christopher Dale has been published in New York Newsday, The Daily Beast and Salon, among other outlets, and is a regular contributor to The Fix, a sober lifestyle website. Follow him on Twitter at @ChrisDaleWriter
23 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark L
9 years ago

While I appreciate addiction is a horrible thing, I think it would be handy to treat Josh Hamilton as you would any other person. Possessing cocaine is a crime, right? So why isn’t he being arrested? If I tested positive for cocaine (on the off chance I worked for a company that tested its employees) I’d be fired, immediately. Why should Harrison, already a three-time loser, be treated more leniently than a first-timer?

Richie
9 years ago
Reply to  Mark L

According to all reports, Hamilton didn’t test positive, he turned himself in sometime after the fact.

Eric the Clown
9 years ago
Reply to  Mark L

“If I tested positive for cocaine (on the off chance I worked for a company that tested its employees) I’d be fired, immediately.”

Sounds like you need a stronger union.

Patrick
9 years ago

I don’t know if there is a correct way to handle this situation. The “walking in the other person’s shoes” can be used in many cases. For example, how do you properly punish someone who commits domestic violence when they saw it being done or were abused as a child? I do agree that PEDs, excessive pine tar, corked bats etc. are on a different level from addiction.

JC
9 years ago

“All things considered, a suspension of about a month seems both fair and, for Hamilton, healthy”

I’m not sure if anything else I’ve read today screams of white (and wealthy) privilege.

Marc Schneider
9 years ago
Reply to  JC

So what is your solution? Hang Hamilton by the ball?

87 Cards
9 years ago

Mr. Dale: Thank you for your first-person insight on the challenge of addiction recovery. I share your face-palming when the media plays substance abuse counselor; I carry depression around my in satisfying quality-of-life. I also watched alcohol abuse my dad until the last moment of his young life. Addiction and related diseases are wholly-complicated and not easily understood vicariously by simple thinkers.

To the Josh Hamilton challenge: If I could get audience with the MLB powers-that-be I would strongly suggest consultations with the people of Hamilton’s productive and peaceful Texas years–Nolan Ryan, Ron Washington, Adrian Beltre and the many honorable teammates and compassionate medical staff that set up a productive personal and professional structure for him. I think that input needs to guide MLB’s move. I appreciate the corporate behavioral standards that MLB must demand; I also believe, from my own experience with illness and as a occupational leader, that with rational, balanced thought a young man may emerge empowered to make healthy decisions.

All recovering addicts will drop the ball; those of a determined character, as Hamilton showed in Texas, will pick up the ball and ask for help from the relay man. It is only just and humane that we-the baseball community-give Hamilton our support: Consequences–if useful and appropriate–but also our outstretched hand.

Paul G.
9 years ago

Cannot agree more. Addiction is a nasty thing. Once addiction takes hold it can make it very difficult to avoid the addiction, even if you desperately do not want to indulge. Even “act like your life depended on it” can be insufficient motivation.

Josh appears to be quite serious about trying to beat back his demons. I do not see the point of a year-long suspension unless there is more to the story that we do not know. If he was falling off the cocaine wagon every year that would be a different matter. There has to be a balance between patience and consequences.

Eric the Clown
9 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

The point of the suspension is to save the Angels a lot of money.

Andy
9 years ago

Like many recovering addicts, you argue that a long suspension for Hamilton is both a) unfair, given the difficulty he faces and the progress he had made; and b) counter-productive, as he needs the structure provided by playing. The fairness question will always be a matter of opinion; even those with great sympathy towards Hamilton, who recognize addiction as a disease one has very little control over, may still believe he has to pay the consequences. But b) is surely a matter of fact; his battle against addiction will be much easier if he’s playing than if he’s idle. In fact, my understanding is that his problem began when he was sidelined by an auto accident, so not only is not playing hurting him by removing structure from his life, but it may be providing the same setting that he associates with taking substances of abuse.

It seems to me that a simple way of distinguishing these aspects, fairness and practicality, is by making a parallel distinction between two kinds of suspension: financial suspension, losing all of his salary; and activity suspension, being banned from playing. Though I don’t agree that the fairness aspect warrants a long suspension, those who do should argue only on the financial basis; if he’s deserving of a year’s suspension, this just means he loses a year’s salary. The practicality aspect demands that his ban from playing should be much shorter; indeed, if he’s ready to play now, and those who treat him agree, I think he should not be banned at all. Let him play, but without being paid for his play.

I understand that this solution would not work for most people, who can’t afford to go a long period of time without being paid, and even more can’t afford to work for free during that period. It’s only possible with an established player like Hamilton, who has the funds to survive. This approach also might be criticized for giving his team an unfair advantage, getting a valuable player for free. Perhaps the money could go into a league-wide fund for helping players with addiction.

But the principle, distinguishing between working and being paid for work, is not new. Professionals, particularly in law enforcement, are frequently suspended with pay while some behavior is being investigated. In this case, fairness dictates that they be paid, while practicality indicates they should not continue with their job during the investigation. In this case, Hamilton would be treated in the opposite matter.

Mark L
9 years ago

If you’re going to bend over backwards to help the fabulously wealthy, lucky man that is Josh Hamilton, then we ought to treat all addicts the same way. Look at how Portugal has revolutionised drug addiction, for one.

But, if you’re going to go by the current rules of the sport that Hamilton is a contracted performer in, then he should suffer the punishment as laid out by those rules. If there’s one thing guaranteed to turn ordinary fans off, it’s the “one rule for them, one for us” being so flagrantly displayed.

matt w
9 years ago
Reply to  Mark L

We should treat ordinary drug crimes much more humanely, and it’s sadly unlikely that we will. But I don’t think failing to ban Hamilton for life is going to stop that from happening, so I don’t see that as an argument against banning him.

Calvin Liu
9 years ago

I agree with the proposed punishment, but I am unclear as to why addiction is any different than poverty, lack of opportunity, being the wrong skin color, not being rich, etc etc.
While I recognize that addicts go through struggles – nonetheless there are many areas for more deserving of consideration than how we should devote mind share towards a millionaire addict.
Why should I feel compassion for Josh Hamilton rather than the hundreds and thousands of underpaid minor league players? He at least has the resources to live with his problems whatever the outcome of this latest episode – while all those minor cogwheels in the Major League Baseball machine don’t, and that’s just looking at baseball.

Marc Schneider
9 years ago
Reply to  Calvin Liu

Your comment is completely incomprehensible. You might as well say, why feel compassion for a rich kid who has cancer when there are plenty of people out there who don’t have jobs. Feeling compassion for Hamilton doesn’t preclude one from also being concerned about minor leaguers being underpaid.

Your comment is simply and irrelevant.

Mark L
9 years ago
Reply to  Marc Schneider

Just not true. This is the issue, right now, and if we say “sorry Josh, you have to deal with the same system every other non-millionaire addict does” it would be a start. If you want to improve drug policy, start with the overcrowded prisons, not the millionaire ballplayer who’s already violated the policy multiple times.

You know as well as I do what will happen. Hamilton will get a ludicrously easy “punishment”, and on the same day thousands of poor addicts will get jail time, lose their jobs, their families and so on.

Calvin Liu
9 years ago
Reply to  Marc Schneider

You have your opinion, I have mine.
I don’t consider Josh Hamilton’s situation a problem for baseball as a sport – whereas I do consider minor league pay to be that kind of problem.

Marc Schneider
9 years ago

Based on several of the comments above, it’s easy to see MLB’s problem. If they don’t “throw the book” at Hamilton, people will be screaming about “white privilege” and how baseball is too lenient. (BTW, the solution to the “white privilege” issue is not to treat whites more harshly as JC seems to want with his trendy trope about white privilege but to make the drug laws more fair for non-whites.)

If, as everyone says, addiction is a disease, then you should not treat it as if it is just a matter of personal conduct. It would be like punishing someone for getting cancer. As the author says, Hamilton certainly did not begin abusing drugs and alcohol to make himself a better player. He obviously does not want to be an addict. And it’s not like he is a threat to society.

Mark L
9 years ago
Reply to  Marc Schneider

As I said in another reply, check the exact day he’s given his punishment, at just your local court. See how many people are treated much more harshly than Hamilton for similar crimes. That’s just one day. How about we start with those people and get to the millionaire ballplayers last?

Z
9 years ago
Reply to  Mark L

I think that’s the wrong attitude on this one. The trick is to use cases like these as a springboard to get something done for all the poor schmucks doing hard time for the same offenses. I mean, Hamilton is a poster boy to get sympathy from people with votes and power: he’s “all-American” (see: white, wholesome public image, athletic, handsome), he has a job that people appreciate, and he’s successfully fended off a relapse for a decade.

So yes, we should be getting behind him for pragmatic (rather than punitive) sentencing. Especially since it’s well-established that the threat of punishment is about as good as a wet napkin for fighting addiction. And, as Hamilton gets a useful sentence, the hypocrisy of giving a rich white guy that chance while there are ten poor black guys sitting in lockup needs to be hammered down hard, using Hamilton as a springboard for reforming the laws that mean they get time in lockup rather than rehab and structure/maintenance.

The weird thing is, politics is almost entirely ruled by emotion, rather than data. The data says pretty clearly: you can’t beat addiction by punishing addicts. Other countries do things that work, yet we refuse to follow them. So, instead, we need to somehow get the largely-ignorant public to see some examples of treatment plans that actually work.

Yehoshua Friedman
9 years ago

Why can’t the Commissioner’s office let him play but confiscate his year’s salary and donate it to drug rehabilitation programs for the ordinary, flat-broke addict and his suffering family? Then you get the advantage of what works as opposed to what doesn’t in handling Hamilton himself and also help those glitterless ordinary addicts to get straight.

KevinP
9 years ago

Mr. Dale, thank you for having the fortitude to write something that people have such passionate beliefs, and are at their most self-righteous. I’ll say that I’ve gotten close enough to the “event horizon” that I was shot out of orbit in terror (sorry, but the “quantum physics” analogy was too hard to resist). Like booze, amphetamines, and marijuana, cocaine isn’t a “PED”, as you mentioned. Illegal of course. I wonder how many people who are stomping around about Hamilton are alcoholics “in the closet”. He’s losing a hell of a lot of money as it is, what else should he be given, the gas chamber? And I’ll take your reasoning in regards to his “penalty phase” to someone like you, someone who “gets it”. Oh, and one last thing. People are comparing what would happen to them on “their jobs”. “BFD”! Does the entertainment industry fine their singers, dancer, actors, etc for being stoned out of their gourd? Why then, the lack of outcry for those miscreants? Essentially, people in that profession can run wild until they can’t do it anymore, or windup on the slab. And really, as far as the Office of Hypocrisy, er MLB, is concerned, they went that route for decades. OK, before I really get going, I’m really happy for you, Mr. Dale, and I will pray that the “Manager Upstairs” keeps riding you straight.

Fake Chanel
8 years ago

Through March 27 on Christie’s website, buyers can bid on bags from brands like Hermes, Chanel and Louis Vuitton, ranging from limited edition pieces that will never be made again to iconic Hermes Kellys in candy colors

Smithk5
8 years ago

I’m curious to uncover out what weblog system youre employing? Im experiencing some small security problems with my latest weblog and Id like to locate something a lot more safeguarded. Do you have any recommendations? ededbdbbgebeadek