Posted By:
Gilbert MainesJay, PASJD, and others: you are correct. Rose is the ultimate responsible party for all of his actions. That baseball does not have programs in place to diagnose the problems of their employees is a judgement call that the owners are hopefully better equipped to make than I am.
But in my opinion, since baseball has chosen to turn their back to the developing problems of its employees, they are not behaving responsibly.
Although I do not endorse drunk driving, I also do not believe that the proper way to address a problem typically caused by an addiction is to make the penalties stiffer. The addict will accept any potential penalty, I think. Preventing a drunk driver from driving until he is cured, preventing a gambler from playing baseball until he is cured, etc. are desperate, necessary actions. These actions are necessary once the progress of the disease has reached its advanced stages (that stage at which its existence is obvious to a casual observer).
The key of course is to correct the progress of the disease before it reaches its final stages. An addict's family is often aware of a developing problem. But somewhat powerless to enforce corrective action. An employer seems able to have comparitively stronger influence on a budding addict. And of course, our legal system certainly has the power to require corrective action, but that has potential permanent impact on the individual.
PASJD, in answer to your inquiry: "Gilbert, you want baseball to protect its employees from drug problems, but testing is too invasive. What should they do, have the boys fill out a questionnaire? You are trying to have it both ways, I think."
I agree. I do not have the answer. I am not alone in this. Everything stated in this post and in my posts above represents the opinion of a person with no expertise in the area being discussed. But this ignorance changes nothing. I still believe what I have stated.
This post and the one on Jackson would be more appropriately entitled "It is baseball's fault too"