Michigan baseball player apologizes for mimicking cocaine snorting after sliding into third base
'I would like to apologize for my actions on third base yesterday,' Voit said. 'I made an immature decision in the heat of the moment. The gesture I made does not reflect my character, the household I was raised in, or the block M that I represent in any kind of way. I take full responsibility for what I did, and I am truly sorry to all those who I have negatively impacted by doing this.'
Advertisement
The incident occurred in the second inning after Voit's bases-clearing triple. Voit slid head-first into the bag, lowered his face to the third-base line and imitated snorting the chalk like a line of cocaine. Clips of the celebration promptly garnered viral attention on social media.
The gesture was not included in a clip of Voit's highlights from the game posted by the Big Ten Baseball account on X, though the hit was.
Mitch Voit did it with his bat (3-3, 4 RBI) and glove today.
Watch the star 2B's highlights in @umichbaseball's run-rule win over USC 👇#B1GBaseball pic.twitter.com/dHCyqYhsNs
— Big Ten Baseball (@B1Gbaseball) March 16, 2025
The 20-year-old from Wisconsin finished the game 3-for-3 with three runs and four RBIs in Michigan's eventual 11-0 win. On Monday, he was named the Big Ten Player of the Week after scoring six runs and notching 12 RBIs over the five-game stretch. It was the first time Voit earned the honor in his collegiate career.
Neither the Big Ten nor Michigan immediately responded to questions regarding whether or not the team would disciple Voit for his actions.
Entering Tuesday, Voit has a team-best batting average of .451, a slugging percentage of .845 and leads the Wolverines with 32 hits, 28 RBIs and five home runs.
Michigan (11-8) closes out a four-game homestand hosting Western Michigan (1-16) on Tuesday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
NCAA exonerates Chris Partridge in ‘signgate,' clearing him of major allegations
On the eve of the Michigan football vs. Maryland game in 2023, there was a buzz that something was about to happen to the Wolverines coaching staff, exactly one week after Jim Harbaugh was summarily suspended by the Big Ten according to its sportsmanship policy. The latter came as a result of a campaign by coaches and athletic directors around the conference as the Connor Stalions saga was just starting to infiltrate the college football landscape. And then a bombshell: then-Michigan linebackers coach Chris Partridge had allegedly instructed a student-athlete to lie to NCAA investigators and then destroyed crucial evidence. If that was the case, it was certainly a warranted firing. According to The Michigan Insider's Sam Webb ($), Partridge, 'Advised some of the players on what to say (to investigators) about their interaction with Stallions. One or more of the players told investigators (what Partridge instructed them to do). When Michigan found out, they reacted with immediate termination. So it wasn't involvement in the scheme itself, but it was an attempt to quell suspicion.' Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel and Ross Dellenger also reported that, 'Partridge is not alleged at this time of knowing about the advanced scouting by Stalions, but acted after the fact to cover up evidence.' The covering up of evidence, according to Wetzel and Dellenger, involved the, 'Destruction of evidence on a computer after the scandal broke.' But as it turns out, according to the NCAA's findings, that account turned out to be wholly inaccurate, and it found no wrongdoing whatsoever. Finally, on November 14, 2023, Partridge had two exchanges with student-athlete 1. Specifically,student-athlete 1 had an upcoming interview related to the investigation and sought out Partridgefor advice on the interview process. The first exchange occurred prior to practice, when studentathlete 1 announced to Partridge and a group of about five other student-athletes that he was beinginterviewed the following day. Partridge stated that student-athlete 1 then followed Partridge intohis office to ask for advice about the interview. During that exchange, Partridge suggested thatstudent-athlete 1 retain counsel and talk to his father. Partridge said that student-athlete 1 thenasked if they could talk again later. In support of this account, Partridge submitted an affidavitfrom one of the other student-athletes who was present in the room. Following practice, Partridge said he received a text from student-athlete 1 stating that he waswaiting in Partridge's office. Partridge walked by his office and told student-athlete 1 to walk withhim and talk. Student-athlete 1 gave Partridge a summary of the conversation with his father, andPartridge reiterated that he thought student-athlete 1should get a lawyer, then they parted ways. Inaddition to the affidavit, Partridge's account of the interactions is closely supported by camerafootage from around the facility. The NCAA had also alleged that he had improperly contacted recruits, held improper workouts, and also gave out gear improperly. While it did say that he had some improper contact (a Level II violation), the rest of what was alleged did not happen. More via the NCAA report: The NOA alleged additional violations for Partridge, including: (1) arranging and conductingimpermissible tryouts with prospects; (2) providing an impermissible inducement to a prospect;and (3) failing to cooperate during and after his employment at Michigan. The recruitingallegations were presented as Level II. The failure to cooperate allegations were presented asLevel I. Partridge disputed each of the allegations. The panel concludes that the case record doesnot demonstrate that these violations occurred. Impermissible TryoutsThe enforcement staff alleged that Partridge conducted impermissible tryouts with prospects onfour occasions during the spring and summer of 2023. Three of those alleged tryouts consisted ofindividual workouts with prospect 1 at Michigan's practice facilities. The other alleged tryout wasa group workout on Michigan's practice field. Across his interviews with the enforcement staff, prospect 1 stated that he engaged in multipleindividual workouts with Partridge. However, some of prospect 1's statements were unclear, andhe seemed to have trouble recalling the total number of workouts that may have occurred. Partridge consistently denied conducting any individual workouts and suggested that prospect 1could have been referring to other, permissible interactions. Specifically, Partridge gave prospect1's stepfather 'film drills' to run and worked on technique with prospect 1 while watching film inPartridge's office. Moreover, at the hearing, Partridge recalled that prospect 1 attended camps atMichigan in May and/or June, during which he and Partridge would have interacted. Notably, the panel considered several text exchanges between Partridge and prospect 1 referencingworking out. During those conversations, Partridge made statements about needing 'to do that inthe summer' because there were '[t]oo many people around now.' He also encouraged prospect1 to visit in May and June 2023 so they could 'do some more ball' and 'talk [football] and train.'At the hearing, Partridge explained that, although several of the text exchanges indicatedPartridge's interest in working out with prospect 1, his messages were crafted in an attempt to pushoff the workouts until football camps started at Michigan in May and June. In that way, Partridgewas attempting to be responsive to prospect 1, while still complying with tryout legislation. Thepanel is persuaded by Partridge's account of these events. The panel is also persuaded by Partridge's explanation of Michigan's BBQ at the Big House three prospects were registered camp attendees, and the timing of the workout appeared toalign with a scheduled camp activity.34 In light of Partridge's arguments, the panel does notconclude that any individual or group workouts constituted violations. Impermissible Recruiting InducementsThe enforcement staff alleged that, on one occasion, Partridge walked prospect 1 to the equipmentroom to receive gear. As addressed previously, Michigan disputed that prospect 1 received anygear from football staff members. Partridge also denied that he provided any gear to prospect 1,other than a camp T-shirt given to all attendees of the BBQ at the Big House Camp. In prospect 1's interview with the enforcement staff, he did not initially mention that Partridgeprovided him gear. After being asked multiple times, prospect 1 stated that Partridge, as well asClinkscale, each walked him to the equipment room on one occasion. The record contains a photoof Partridge and prospect 1, with prospect 1 holding the camp T-shirt. Although the panel concludes that the other inducements are sufficiently supported by informationin the record, the panel does not believe that there is sufficient information to conclude thatPartridge directly provided or assisted in providing prospect 1 with an impermissible inducementin the form of gear. There are certainly some questions that should be raised. First, who was the player who alleged that Partridge instructed him to lie to the NCAA when it turned out that that wasn't the case? Also, what did Michigan know (or in this case, how was the athletic department deceived) through the process that resulted in Partridge's dismissal? Also, why did the program note in Partridge's firing that he's not eligible for rehire when the facts had yet to be determined? Back on November 7, 2023, Partridge released a statement denying wrongdoing, indicating he was being railroaded -- which now looks prescient given the NCAA's findings: Unfortunately, the manner in which the termination of my employment and my role as a Coach at Michigan has been reported is inaccurate and has resulted in people speculating and making assumptions about my knowledge of, and connection to, the sign-stealing allegations within the football program. I want to be clear: I had no knowledge whatsoever of any in-person or illegal scouting, or illegal sign stealing. Additionally, at no point did I destroy any evidence related to an ongoing investigation. Partridge has been a coach with the Seattle Seahawks the past two years and doesn't appear to have interest, as of current, of returning to the college game. What's more, the once-favored son in Ann Arbor who had helped Jim Harbaugh from his first year until 2023 -- minus a couple of years at Ole Miss -- was railroaded for what ended up being no reason. It will be interesting to see if we ever learn who was behind the purported lie that lost him his job in Ann Arbor.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What is a show-cause order? Explaining NCAA's Michigan penalties
The NCAA announced Friday it was handing out four different show-cause orders to the four people most involved in the University of Michigan football team's sign-stealing scandal in 2023. But what is a show-cause order? And who is it affecting? The NCAA's announcement on Aug. 15 of sanctions against the Michigan program included penalties for four people associated with the scandal: Connor Stalions, the former Michigan defensive analyst who orchestrated much of the illicit "off-campus, in-person scouting scheme;" Jim Harbaugh, former Michigan head coach and current Los Angeles Chargers head coach; Denard Robinson, former assistant director of player personnel for Michigan; and Sherrone Moore, Michigan's active head coach. Here's what to know about the show-cause orders imposed on each of them: NCAA PUNISHMENT: Explaining former Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh's sanctions Who was penalized by the NCAA for Michigan's sign-stealing scandal? The NCAA announced its sanctions for Michigan's illicit activities in the 2023 season on Friday. Here are the four active or former personnel members of the Michigan football program hit with sanctions for their involvement in the Wolverines' sign-stealing scandal and what their penalties are, per the NCAA: Former defensive analyst Connor Stalions: Eight-year show-cause order Former head coach Jim Harbaugh: 10-year show-cause order, which begins Aug. 7, 2028 after the conclusion of a current, four-year show-cause order from a previous rules violation. Former assistant director of player personnel Denard Robinson: Three-year show-cause order Current head coach Sherrone Moore: Two-year show-cause order, plus a three-game ban. Michigan self-imposed a two-game ban for Moore during the 2025 season, which he will serve in Weeks 3 and 4 (vs. Central Michigan, at Nebraska) this year. The NCAA also imposed its own one-game ban for the Wolverines' first game in the 2026 season (vs. Western Michigan in Germany). MICHIGAN SIGN-STEALING PUNISHMENT: NCAA suspends Sherrone Moore, show-cause for Connor Stalions All three former members of Michigan's football program are not currently employed by a college football program and are restricted "from all athletically related activities during the show-cause period." Moore, who is Michigan's active head coach, did not receive the same prohibitions. The football program as a whole also received its own list of penalties. They include four years' probation, a "multimillion-dollar fine" and certain prohibitions on recruitment: "a 25% reduction in football official visits during the 2025-26 season" and "a 14-week prohibition on recruiting communications in the football program during the probation period." SHERRONE MOORE SUSPENSION: Is Michigan head coach suspended for Week 1? What is a show-cause order? A show-cause order is essentially a college football-wide ban on hiring a person to join their coaching staff. If Michigan or any other college football program wanted to hire Stalions, Harbaugh, Robinson or Moore (or any other person with an active show-cause), it would have to appear before the NCAA's committee on infractions and make a strong case for why it specifically wants to hire one of them. The name "show cause" comes from the case that the prospective employer must make to the NCAA, showing cause for why previous infractions will not happen again if a previous offender is hired at a new program. Show-cause orders are a somewhat common penalty imposed on coaches or other personnel found to have violated major rules. DAN WOLKEN: Divided opinions on Michigan sign-stealing scandal just part of college football tribalism Other recent/active show-cause orders in college athletics Here are a few other examples of recent or active show-cause orders in college sports: Kelvin Sampson, 2008: The former Indiana head basketball coach and current Houston head coach received a five-year show-cause for NCAA violations during his time at Indiana, including impermissible calls to recruits. Bruce Pearl, 2011: The former Tennessee head basketball coach and current head coach at Auburn received a three-year show-cause for lying to the NCAA about hosting a recruit during a cookout at his home. Jim Tressel, 2011: The former Ohio State head coach received a five-year show-cause for failing to report NCAA violations involving his team's players. Jeremy Pruitt, 2023: The former Tennessee head football coach received a six-year show-cause for providing impermissible benefits to recruits during his time coaching the Volunteers. Pruitt's show-cause is still active and runs through July 13, 2029. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Show-cause order, explained: What Michigan's NCAA penalties mean
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why the NCAA didn't force Michigan to vacate wins as part of its punishment for the Connor Stalions scandal
There was no serious consideration for the NCAA to vacate any wins from Michigan's 2023 national title season. The NCAA said Friday that Michigan didn't lose any wins as part of its punishment for its advance scouting scheme because the saga didn't involve any ineligible athletes and because the NCAA had immediately alerted the Big Ten about what Michigan was doing. Michigan was fined tens of millions of dollars, former coach Jim Harbaugh was given a 10-year show-cause penalty and Connor Stalions got an eight-year show-cause penalty from the NCAA on Friday. The NCAA highlighted the lengths that Stalions went to steal teams' signs via in-person scouting and that 'aspects of the record suggest that there may have been broader acceptance of the scheme throughout the program. At minimum, there was a willful intent not to learn more about Stalions' methods.' However, the NCAA did not take the step of vacating any wins or even giving Michigan a postseason ban. The NCAA even said in the infractions report that a postseason ban was 'required' in Michigan's case and that a multi-year ban would be appropriate. However, the NCAA said that 'a postseason ban would unfairly penalize student-athletes for the actions of coaches and staff who are no longer associated with the Michigan football program' and 'thus, a more appropriate penalty is an offsetting financial penalty.' After the NCAA notified the Big Ten of Stalions' scouting in October of 2023, the Big Ten suspended Harbaugh for the final three games of the season less than a month later. Michigan, which went 15-0 on the way to the national title, won all three of those games and even beat Penn State and Ohio State without Harbaugh on the sidelines. There once was a precedent, however, for the NCAA to vacate wins for incidents that do not involve player eligibility. The NCAA forced Penn State to vacate all wins from 1998 through 2011 as part of its punishment for the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal and the Nittany Lions faced a postseason ban. But in 2015, as part of a settlement with Pennsylvania state officials, the NCAA restored Penn State's vacated wins. The most recent team to have wins vacated is Arizona State. The Sun Devils had two wins vacated from the 2022 season under coach Herm Edwards and eight in 2021. Kentucky had nine regular-season wins and a bowl game vacated in 2021.
