Looks fake.  IMHO....

Dadof3 posted:

Looks fake.  IMHO....

The school confirmed it was real.

https://www.chron.com/news/hou...4.php#photo-15155168

I was about to post no college coach is that stupid. Is his full name Mike Jim Bob Billy Joe Bubba Jack Jeffcoat? His title may soon be ex Texas Wesleyan baseball coach.

Good thing there aren’t any drugs in Texas or this coach would come off like a moron.

RJM posted:

I was about to post no college coach is that stupid. Is his full name Mike Jim Bob Billy Joe Bubba Jack Jeffcoat? His title may soon be ex Texas Wesleyan baseball coach.

Good thing there aren’t any drugs in Texas or this coach would come off like a moron.

'Would' come off like a  moron?

Pot (pun intended) meet kettle!

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I don't know the answer:  Does the NCAA (or any school, for that matter) routinely test for marijuana use?  I was wondering why this would (even theoretically) be an issue.

Schools can internally test. Some do and some don't. 

my son was tested during NCAA playoffs - but it was a random test which only tested a few players. Apart from that he wasn't tested as an amateur.

Definitely cringeworthy. 23% get that thing on a charger!

How is that coach from TEXAS ever going to find enough ball players to field a winning team without going out of state? (sarcasm) 

my son was randomly tested during his college years, I think testing was internal from the school.

I saw NCAA reps at regionals one year, they would go into the dugouts immediately after games and randomly pick out 1/2 dozen or so players from each team. Players walked out to a space in center field and were tested. One was a friends son who had trouble providing a sample, poor kid was there for two hours chugging waters like crazy until he had to go.

This clown needs to be fired, immediately. 

Schools do test.  And players pop positive on a regular basis.  Discipline varies depending on the school, and how good the player is.  

I thought it was funny. At least the kid knows where he stands.

small NAIA school in TX not very good at all

I hope he has more common sense writing out the resume he'll be sending out in the next few days

Maybe he was just letting the kid down gently - blaming it on politics instead of ability.  Maybe?

4 kids on roster coming from outside of TX.  Guess what - only one (freshman) from CO.  

edcoach posted:

small NAIA school in TX not very good at all

They are currently ranked #6 in NAIA national ranking per Perfect Game.  https://www.perfectgame.org/Ar...w.aspx?article=14941  Even if a coach thought that, have no idea what would lead him to say it, much less put it in writing.  Was on all the local news channels last night and will be interesting to see how the school handles it.

Here is a better question. Why is a positive test for Marijuana a problem for the NCAA if it is "legal??"

FriarFred posted:

edcoach posted:

small NAIA school in TX not very good at all

They are currently ranked #6 in NAIA national ranking per Perfect Game.  https://www.perfectgame.org/Ar...w.aspx?article=14941  Even if a coach thought that, have no idea what would lead him to say it, much less put it in writing.  Was on all the local news channels last night and will be interesting to see how the school handles it.

It’s made it all the way up the food chain to the worldwide leader in sports.  

Steve A. posted:

Here is a better question. Why is a positive test for Marijuana a problem for the NCAA if it is "legal??"

It may be 'considered legal' by an individual state, but it is still schedule 1 drug according to both the DEA and Federal Gov't which makes it 'technically' illegal.

I think the better question would be: why would it be considered a PED by the NCAA when weed will most certainly not 'enhance' the performance of any athlete?

Steve A. posted:

Here is a better question. Why is a positive test for Marijuana a problem for the NCAA if it is "legal??"

Using pot still violates federal law (and probably NCAA & school rules?).  The feds have refrained from enforcement, for now at least, in certain states.

Odd in that marijuana isn’t performance-enhancing. Does the NCAA also test for alcohol use by those under 21?  

It will not enhance performance in the same way as HGH or steroids.  However, I have known a couple of kids, one in HS, and one a college teammate of son's, that were such head cases that they couldn't pitch without firing one up before a game.  Probably happens more than you think. 

My understanding is that pot is not a banned drug by the NCAA.  Have read several articles about how schools themselves test and how some provide little to no penalties.  One school out, per the article, put the kids (primarily football) into a special program where they worked to ween themselves off - basically given a period of time of no testing with the hope that towards the end they would be "clean".  Anybody have actual knowledge of how pot intersects with NCAA rules?

It's only performance enhancing in a Cool Ranch Dorito eating contest....

No alcohol testing that I am aware of. That is my point sort of though. If it is now "legal"; Colorado, California, Washington etc, what is the problem?

If I am 21 & at Colorado State & obey State Law & decide to break out the Bong on the weekend, why is this a problem for the NCAA??  I can drink a 12 pack & the NCAA is fine with it. What is the difference?

Please understand that I , personally, believe that it is idiotic that Marijuana is legal for non medical, recreational use. We could debate that all day but my point is that if it is legal then how can the NCAA view it as a testing violation?

If there's one thing Pot isn't...it isn't performance enhancing. 

"Science Confirms The Obvious: Smoking Pot Makes You Less Motivated

...

Does smoking a joint make you feel a little bit lazy? According to new research, when your "Reefer Madness" turns into "Reefer Can't-get-off-the-couch," it could be because the cannabis is suppressing your ability to synthesize dopamine--the neurotransmitter associated with the pleasure of eating chocolate, and increasingly, motivation."

https://www.popsci.com/science...ss-motivated#page-2.

"Longtime marijuana use might make you a loser

...

MTH posted:

It will not enhance performance in the same way as HGH or steroids.  However, I have known a couple of kids, one in HS, and one a college teammate of son's, that were such head cases that they couldn't pitch without firing one up before a game.  Probably happens more than you think. 

I’m guessing it’s a very rare case in high school or college to smoke up before a game. Kids sharing adderall seems much more likely

As much as I would love to opine on political and moral matters here, this forum is really not the place.  So, I will just say that in such an instance it is probably pretty likely that this coach passed this off with the AD before sending it out.

Everyone who reads this letter knows a little more about Texas Wesleyan in making a decision to attend there.  Some will celebrate their position.  Most will not - that wide gate and all.

Leaving judgment about the uses of various substances out of it (to Teaching Elder's point), if the school has an eligibility rule for sport participation and certain demographics are deemed a risk to that eligibility requirement...what is the problem with the coach electing to not take the chance? For example, if the prospective player has a very marginal GPA and the coach has other prospects that are sitting 4.0, nobody would question the coaches decision to reject the lower GPA. Just because the eligibility issue at stake in this instance is a political hot-bed, the coach should have to bow down to it?

Now, the decision to put it in writing...probably not the wisest move, but at least he was honest?

-42

4T2 posted:

Leaving judgment about the uses of various substances out of it (to Teaching Elder's point), if the school has an eligibility rule for sport participation and certain demographics are deemed a risk to that eligibility requirement...what is the problem with the coach electing to not take the chance? For example, if the prospective player has a very marginal GPA and the coach has other prospects that are sitting 4.0, nobody would question the coaches decision to reject the lower GPA. Just because the eligibility issue at stake in this instance is a political hot-bed, the coach should have to bow down to it?

Now, the decision to put it in writing...probably not the wisest move, but at least he was honest?

-42

I would argue that the difference here is that you have, in your case, an evaluation specific to the individual prospect vs a judgment based simply on Geography & politics with zero weight on the individual recruit. i.e: "Everyone in Colorado smokes dope so we are not interested in you, even though we have no idea about your personal situation." It is beyond stupid. 

4T2 posted:

Leaving judgment about the uses of various substances out of it (to Teaching Elder's point), if the school has an eligibility rule for sport participation and certain demographics are deemed a risk to that eligibility requirement...what is the problem with the coach electing to not take the chance? For example, if the prospective player has a very marginal GPA and the coach has other prospects that are sitting 4.0, nobody would question the coaches decision to reject the lower GPA. Just because the eligibility issue at stake in this instance is a political hot-bed, the coach should have to bow down to it?

 

But academic performance is within the student's control and reflects his personal efforts. (Yes, learning disabilities and other issues could come into play, but a school could choose to have a hard GPA cutoff.)  In the TX Wesleyan case, the student apparently is being penalized for living in a state the coach regards as too liberal.  Even if you agree with the politics, how many high school students get to choose where their parents live?  For that matter, how many adults live in an area they otherwise might not  choose because of a job, family ties or other reasons?

Imagine a coach who said: "I once had a player from Delaware and he used drugs.  So we don't accept any students from Delaware."  Yeah, that would be the coach's prerogative.  But it would be really dumb--and would penalize recruits based on a factor irrelevant to his character or performance.  Alternatively, how about "We don't recruit students from [State], because its gun laws aren't strict enough and we are concerned about mass shootings at schools"?  The criterion the TX Wesleyan coach is using has nothing to do with the actual person being recruited. 

If the coach said "we only recruit pitchers who are over 6'2"," then I'd think it was foolish, but at least it would be pertinent to particular individuals and their qualifications.  For all the coach knows, a Colorado recruit might be ardently anti-drug (and throw 102 mph). 

To paraphrase Yoda, The Peter Principle is strong with this one.  

The "once from Delaware" argument breaks down.  In the case of Colorado, the fact that a plurality voted to legalize marijuana speaks to a wide spread cultural position within the state.   If you take a kid from Tennessee, he's more likely to have certain cultural traits inherent to Tennessee.  He might not, but the odds are that he does.  It's just natural.  Colorado has decided to take a laissez faire attitude towards pot.  That stuff rubs off on the population at large.  One would not be off-base to assume that a Coloradan would have a nonchalant view towards using pot.

Ideas matter.  States don't act in a vacuum.  Just because Coloradans decided to legalize marijuana doesn't mean everybody is suddenly going to agree with them and all's cool.   Folks can make the personal choice that pot smoking is okay.  But potential employers can make the personal choice that they don't want to hire a pot-head.

I don't know what was in that coach's head or that of the administration.  Perhaps they want to stick it in the eye of those with whom they disagree politically.  Maybe they don't have time to waste on those who are likely to not meet various standards of the school and athletics program. 

The year is young.   This statement gets my vote for stupidest thing said in 2018 so far.  No doubt some of our elected officials will take a good run at this, but I think it will stand the test of time. 

Here's your sign.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZkdHImCuQ

Teaching Elder posted:

The "once from Delaware" argument breaks down.  In the case of Colorado, the fact that a plurality voted to legalize marijuana speaks to a wide spread cultural position within the state.   If you take a kid from Tennessee, he's more likely to have certain cultural traits inherent to Tennessee.  He might not, but the odds are that he does.  It's just natural.  Colorado has decided to take a laissez faire attitude towards pot.  That stuff rubs off on the population at large.  One would not be off-base to assume that a Coloradan would have a nonchalant view towards using pot.

 

I agree that employers / recruiters could base decisions on one's state of residence without breaking any laws.  But I respectfully disagree that it's OK to judge a person's character or beliefs based upon the state in which they reside--especially if that person is still dependent on his parents and presumably lives where *they* choose.  

I live in a state that not too long ago passed some pretty harsh anti-gay laws in a referendum.  I can't live in another state unless I win the lottery--I need to work and my job is here.  Would you assume I support all of my state's laws?  Would you assume that even if I told you that I *don't* agree with them?  

As a pure statistical matter, if 51% of Coloradoans support legalized pot, then a person from the state chosen at random is more likely than not to support that position as well.  But what if you were a college coach who announced a policy of zero tolerance for marijuana use and then a Colorado HS student chose to apply to your program?  How about if you replied to an email from a Colorado kid by clearly stating your drug policy and inviting him to let you know if he was still interested?  Would you ignore the kid's follow-up email because he's from a state that legalized pot? 

For my part, I still think this coach is very wrong.

Anyhow, thanks for a respectful dialogue.  More interesting than what I ought to be working on this morning.

........I'm wondering if the school will benefit in any way from the huge amount of free publicity (either good or bad) that this has generated.   I am from Ohio....and I can feel pretty confident  that there were exactly ZERO people in this state that knew Texas Wesleyan existed before.  Now that this story has taken over the Twitterverse and at the very least it's likely every colllege baseball player has seen it (I know my son's team got a laugh out of it on the bus yesterday) that that number may now be in the 100's if not 1000's lol.   Will it gain them any students, baseball or otherwise...I have no idea, but it is putting the school name into alot of conversations it would have never been in before this story

Wow - this sounds like a new opportunity for Stats4Gnats and the analytics groups springing up at colleges.  Let see, why don't we rank order states based on some criteria, starting with pot use and go from there.

1. Pot Use

2. Alcohol use

3. Teen pregnancy

4. Opiod addiction rates

5. Meth lab explosions

6. High school graduation rate

Maybe not that last one cause I guess an individual would have to actually graduate, so the average would not apply.  Oh wait, I guess none of the averages would actually apply to an individual.  Guess you should actually decision based on the actual individual, and not some generalization.

I always do like to support the other side and I have heard there is a significant second hand smoke issue in some cities that could create a false positive.  Maybe the coach just doesn't want to risk it.  Maybe the coach makes sure none of his kids travel through Denver when reporting to school.

Teaching Elder posted:

The "once from Delaware" argument breaks down.  In the case of Colorado, the fact that a plurality voted to legalize marijuana speaks to a wide spread cultural position within the state.   If you take a kid from Tennessee, he's more likely to have certain cultural traits inherent to Tennessee.  He might not, but the odds are that he does.  It's just natural.  Colorado has decided to take a laissez faire attitude towards pot.  That stuff rubs off on the population at large.  One would not be off-base to assume that a Coloradan would have a nonchalant view towards using pot.

Ideas matter.  States don't act in a vacuum.  Just because Coloradans decided to legalize marijuana doesn't mean everybody is suddenly going to agree with them and all's cool.   Folks can make the personal choice that pot smoking is okay.  But potential employers can make the personal choice that they don't want to hire a pot-head.

I don't know what was in that coach's head or that of the administration.  Perhaps they want to stick it in the eye of those with whom they disagree politically.  Maybe they don't have time to waste on those who are likely to not meet various standards of the school and athletics program. 

" Dear San Francisco Recruit, We regret to inform you that due to your City's stance on Immigration, we are not interested in your enrollment at XYZ University. You can thank your Elected Local Politicians for this decision."

See how far down the stupid trail this thinking can go?? 

Lots of good ballplayers in Alabama for those that don't like gambling - bingo doesn't count.

If you coach & are opposed to high taxes you need to focus on Florida recruits.

Steve A. posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

The "once from Delaware" argument breaks down.  In the case of Colorado, the fact that a plurality voted to legalize marijuana speaks to a wide spread cultural position within the state.   If you take a kid from Tennessee, he's more likely to have certain cultural traits inherent to Tennessee.  He might not, but the odds are that he does.  It's just natural.  Colorado has decided to take a laissez faire attitude towards pot.  That stuff rubs off on the population at large.  One would not be off-base to assume that a Coloradan would have a nonchalant view towards using pot.

Ideas matter.  States don't act in a vacuum.  Just because Coloradans decided to legalize marijuana doesn't mean everybody is suddenly going to agree with them and all's cool.   Folks can make the personal choice that pot smoking is okay.  But potential employers can make the personal choice that they don't want to hire a pot-head.

I don't know what was in that coach's head or that of the administration.  Perhaps they want to stick it in the eye of those with whom they disagree politically.  Maybe they don't have time to waste on those who are likely to not meet various standards of the school and athletics program. 

" Dear San Francisco Recruit, We regret to inform you that due to your City's stance on Immigration, we are not interested in your enrollment at XYZ University. You can thank your Elected Local Politicians for this decision."

See how far down the stupid trail this thinking can go?? 

Well, a section of highway in Texas has the highest speed limit in the US at 85mph.....seems like a good reason to not recruit a kid.....    l

Buckeye 2015 posted:

Steve A. posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

The "once from Delaware" argument breaks down.  In the case of Colorado, the fact that a plurality voted to legalize marijuana speaks to a wide spread cultural position within the state.   If you take a kid from Tennessee, he's more likely to have certain cultural traits inherent to Tennessee.  He might not, but the odds are that he does.  It's just natural.  Colorado has decided to take a laissez faire attitude towards pot.  That stuff rubs off on the population at large.  One would not be off-base to assume that a Coloradan would have a nonchalant view towards using pot.

Ideas matter.  States don't act in a vacuum.  Just because Coloradans decided to legalize marijuana doesn't mean everybody is suddenly going to agree with them and all's cool.   Folks can make the personal choice that pot smoking is okay.  But potential employers can make the personal choice that they don't want to hire a pot-head.

I don't know what was in that coach's head or that of the administration.  Perhaps they want to stick it in the eye of those with whom they disagree politically.  Maybe they don't have time to waste on those who are likely to not meet various standards of the school and athletics program. 

" Dear San Francisco Recruit, We regret to inform you that due to your City's stance on Immigration, we are not interested in your enrollment at XYZ University. You can thank your Elected Local Politicians for this decision."

See how far down the stupid trail this thinking can go?? 

Well, a section of highway in Texas has the highest speed limit in the US at 85mph.....seems like a good reason to not recruit a kid.....    l

Not so sure.... Maybe Pitchers Only as they have a higher velocity experience!

Steve A. posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

The "once from Delaware" argument breaks down.  In the case of Colorado, the fact that a plurality voted to legalize marijuana speaks to a wide spread cultural position within the state.   If you take a kid from Tennessee, he's more likely to have certain cultural traits inherent to Tennessee.  He might not, but the odds are that he does.  It's just natural.  Colorado has decided to take a laissez faire attitude towards pot.  That stuff rubs off on the population at large.  One would not be off-base to assume that a Coloradan would have a nonchalant view towards using pot.

Ideas matter.  States don't act in a vacuum.  Just because Coloradans decided to legalize marijuana doesn't mean everybody is suddenly going to agree with them and all's cool.   Folks can make the personal choice that pot smoking is okay.  But potential employers can make the personal choice that they don't want to hire a pot-head.

I don't know what was in that coach's head or that of the administration.  Perhaps they want to stick it in the eye of those with whom they disagree politically.  Maybe they don't have time to waste on those who are likely to not meet various standards of the school and athletics program. 

" Dear San Francisco Recruit, We regret to inform you that due to your City's stance on Immigration, we are not interested in your enrollment at XYZ University. You can thank your Elected Local Politicians for this decision."

See how far down the stupid trail this thinking can go?? 

I apologize for not making my point clear. I'm leaving all personal opinion/stance (mine, the ciach, everyone) out. The lower GPA kid is statistically more likely to have a grade-based eligibility issue than the higher GPA kid. Of course there are exceptions --no argument there. For the same reason, it is more likely for the Colorado kid to have a pot-related eligibility issue. Maybe that likelihood is only 0.00001% higher, but it's higher. The coach elects not to accept that risk and gets cooked for it. For all I know, maybe the school is looking to dump the baseball program and told the coach "one more substance issue and it's over." This could have come from above the coach for all I know. Somebody there actually took a stand--far too uncommon these days--however misguided the communication of it was, and may have had underlying reasons for it that we don't know. Personal stances aside, they have a rule and they stuck by it instead of being wishy washy. Without question, it should have been communicated differently. Whoever approved of the specific messaging did not display much sign of intelligence, and really should get one of Steve Engvall's signs. 

Just my opinions, of course.