Major League Baseball

Hamilton's suspension length open to interpretation

Published Feb. 28, 2015 9:12 p.m. ET

foxsports

After Ken Rosenthal and I reported this week that Josh Hamilton's suspension for a drug relapse could be as short as 25 days and as long as one year, observers noted the large gap in possible punishments.

But given the past and present complexities — in Hamilton's case and Major League Baseball drug agreements — it's easy to understand why Commissioner Rob Manfred is considering such a broad range of penalties.

Hamilton's previous time on the suspended list — from Feb. 18, 2004, through June 1, 2006 — is at the core of the issue.

Hamilton was on the Tampa Bay Devil Rays' 40-man roster at the time. Thus, he was penalized as a major-league player under the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program, known as JDA, which was agreed upon in 2002. Those facts are not in dispute.

Here's where the ambiguity comes in: How many violations actually occurred during the two-plus years of Hamilton's suspension?

Because the suspension spanned three seasons, it's reasonable to assume he was at least a three-time offender during that time. In the March 19, 2005, edition of the St. Petersburg Times, Marc Topkin wrote that Hamilton initially was given a one-year suspension in 2004, but it was "later extended to cover the 2005 season due to additional violations." It was extended again into 2006, before then-Commissioner Bud Selig reinstated Hamilton.

The current punishment scale for violating a treatment program is as follows: 15 to 25 games (first offense), 25 to 50 games (second offense), 50 to 75 games (third offense), at least one year (fourth offense), commissioner's discretion (all subsequent offenses).

Sources say Manfred — rather than an MLB/MLB Players Association drug treatment board — will determine Hamilton's punishment. Based on the above criteria, that suggests Hamilton may have at least four prior offenses.

Yet, should all of those offenses be counted equally? The Angels outfielder has been required to pass three drug tests per week under the terms of his June 2006 reinstatement. He had remained clean, as far as we know, until the recent relapse. What ought to weigh more heavily — numerous offenses in a three-year span a decade ago, or nearly nine years of sobriety?

Moreover, the JDA does not specify losses of salary when players are suspended for drugs of abuse; the MLBPA is likely to defend that point as stridently as any other in the event the union disagrees with MLB on the terms of Hamilton's discipline.

The JDA only stipulates that players retain full salary for the first 30 days they are absent from the team while undergoing inpatient or outpatient treatment, half salary for days 31 through 60 and then no salary retention thereafter.

Finally, the JDA has changed substantially in the 12-plus years of its existence. The precise definition of an "offense" may have changed from the 2002 document to the one that exists today.

None of this is simple. And that is why the commissioner is considering such a wide range of options. The right one, however we might define that, is in there somewhere.