Skip to content

Rays minor leaguer Cody Rogers suspended for refusing to take drug test

Dec 17, 2012, 5:13 PM EDT

I choose not to run

Well, this is a new one.

MLB just announced that Rays minor leaguer Cody Rogers has been suspended 50 games for “refusing to take an offseason drug test.”

Rogers, a 24-year-old outfielder who was a seventh-round draft pick in 2009, spent this season hitting .244 with four homers and a .655 OPS in 112 games at high Single-A.

I guess technically he can now claim to have not actually failed the drug test, but … well, the punishment is the same anyway.

Sort of reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld choosing not to run the race back in the ninth grade.

  1. 13arod - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM

    i saw him play he is a good guy and he is one of the last one on the team i could see refusing a drug test

    • kkolchak - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:34 PM

      How could you tell that? Was there something about the way he ran the bases?

    • Caught Looking - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:49 PM

      Could you get a little more subjective in your analysis.

    • indaburg - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:53 PM

      He is the last one on the team.. What? The suspense is killing me.

  2. personalspaceinvader - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:37 PM

    At least if you took it and subsequently failed, you could claim it was someone else’s fault (see: Braun, Ryan).

    • koufaxmitzvah - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM

      I suggest you take a test and, despite all allocutions of it being confidential and go through the regular rigamarole, someone in the media suggests you fail it, and therefore you lose your livelihood for 50-60 days of the year. And then come back here and continue repeating false allegations against somebody.

      And when you do this, please use your real name (see, Braun, Ryan) as opposed to some message board moniker.


      • personalspaceinvader - Dec 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM

        Oh wahhhh. It was a joke. Calling me out for using an online handle? Lame.

      • djpostl - Dec 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

        Rofl. False allegations.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Dec 17, 2012 at 9:42 PM

        “someone in the media suggests you fail it”

        He did fail the test. Braun himself does not dispute that. He won his appeal becuase they calimed the package could have been sent from anotehr FedEx location that day.

        Yes, it should not have been made public, that I will agree. But when he won his appeal, it would have come out at that point anyway

      • mrfloydpink - Dec 18, 2012 at 3:28 AM

        @DelawarePhilliesFan: If you’re going to sanctimoniously correct others, then you really should be…correct.

        Braun does not, in fact, admit that he failed the drug test, as that would be tantamount to admitting that he did steroids. What he certainly agrees to is that the lab that conducted the test reported a positive result. He has no more basis for disputing that piece of information than you or I do; he wasn’t in the lab when they conducted the test.

        The basis of his appeal was that a sloppily-handled chain of custody–the sample was not sent as quickly as it could have been, was not stored as carefully as it should have been–was responsible for producing the positive falsely. In other words, he argued that the poor handling of the sample means he did NOT fail the test. That would be the opposite of what you said.

  3. koufaxmitzvah - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:47 PM

    As a proud pothead, I only take urine tests when I want to take the urine test. And that is, generally, when I am ready to pee in a cup. Which, apparently, happens to be 2 hours after I drink a pitcher of tea 4 times.

    Mandatory drug tests, but you can buy a gun with a driver’s license. Sweet country.

    • denny65 - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:52 AM

      Gun: yes; vote? You don’t need no stinkin’ driver’s license.

    • skids003 - Dec 18, 2012 at 7:41 AM

      Not quite, koufax, most states require a background check. But to vote, just show up.

    • stlouis1baseball - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:41 PM

      With you in spirit Sandy. But most states require a background check to purchase a gun.
      Unless it is a long gun (like a 12 Gauge Shotgun). I am more concerned with the ease at which a person votes in this Country. Like it or not…it is a lot closer to Denny and Skids’ posts. Just show up.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Dec 18, 2012 at 7:13 PM

        I’m thinking more about gun shows, where the drivers license necessary is getting there. Or how about online ammo?

        Not the best analogy. Not trying to take anyone’s guns away. But these drug tests are ridiculous and they don’t allow for any variables. And all us people have got variables.

  4. paperlions - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM

    Most of the time, doesn’t it turn out that MLB has the wrong contact information and after showing up to the wrong location they suspend the player rather than…you know…find out where he is. The last time this happened it came out that MLB didn’t even bother to contact his team to get updated contact information…they went to the guys parents house, where he hadn’t lived for years, and because he wasn’t there they suspended him for “refusing to take the test” under the assumption that he was avoiding them rather than the fact that he simply didn’t live there.

    • indaburg - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM

      Huh. I guess that could be it, but I prefer my imaginary scenario where Cody is telling The Man to shove it.

    • deep64blue - Dec 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

      I was thinking exactly this ….

    • mscott4 - Dec 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

      This is probably often the case but I’d also be willing to bet the CBA says it is on the player to keep the league notified of current residence and also notify if you will be away from for any period of time. Not that hard to do when your livelihood depends on it.

    • anxovies - Dec 17, 2012 at 7:03 PM

      .244 with 4 HR at A-ball? He needs to find a better source of PEDS. He is a minor-leaguer but I think if I was a rich MLB player my home of record would be some small island with feral dogs and tusked boars running free, guarded by an armed band of fiercely loyal former Asian pirates. After the first off-season drug test I don’t think there would be another one.

    • stex52 - Dec 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM

      I will repeat a previous statement. I am liable for random drug testing in my profession. I find the random drug test to be a despicable intrusion on my privacy. But I’m not independently wealthy. I sympathize with Mr. Rogers, but I could only advise him to think about his future priorities before he sticks with this decision.

    • louhudson23 - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:44 PM

      It is my understanding,and purely that,as I have never seen the contract,that it is a players responsibility to inform MLB of his whereabouts and to make himself available for testing. Any and all failures to do so are the players responsibility.These are the rules for everyone who signs the contract.

  5. mnwildfan15 - Dec 17, 2012 at 11:18 PM

    He could claim it’s against his religion. Everyone else gets away with it

    • chav11 - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM

      That’s right…..Jews don’t pee in a cup…..never have never will……Idk why though and I don’t ask because well that’s just rude.

  6. avietar - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM

    To paraphrase Pittsburgh’s management when they cut Ralph Kiner’s salary after he’d had a fifty-homer season: Ross could’ve hit .244 WITHOUT the PED’s.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2978)
  2. J. Fernandez (2395)
  3. Y. Cespedes (2342)
  4. G. Stanton (2223)
  5. D. Span (2035)
  1. Y. Puig (1967)
  2. M. Teixeira (1934)
  3. F. Rodney (1906)
  4. G. Springer (1893)
  5. H. Olivera (1875)