substance

PHOENIX — Dodgers infielder Miguel Rojas addressed an erroneous report from earlier in the week with understanding while also making his feelings clear.

On Monday, a senior baseball writer at the Athletic misidentified Rojas as the recipient of an 80-game suspension for the use of a banned substance on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. It was in fact Phillies outfielder Johan Rojas who had tested positive for Boldenone. The writer, Evan Drellich, quickly deleted the post and corrected it.

“I’m not frustrated because of the report, because we are all humans and we make mistakes,” Rojas said Wednesday morning in front of his locker at Camelback Ranch. “I was expecting a little bit more of an apology, not just to me, but the organization. Because it wasn’t just my name, it was pretty clear that it says, ‘Miguel Rojas from the Los Angeles Dodgers.’ And I don’t think anybody in this organization should be kind of freaking out and jumping out of their seats for the six or seven minutes that it happened.”

Rojas saw the correction post as an opportunity to issue that apology.

“It wasn’t just my name, it was the organization that I represent too, and that’s really important to me,” he said. “So that’s the only thing that I’m kind of bothered [by].”

Later on Wednesday, Drellich followed up with another post: “To Miguel Rojas and the Dodgers, I sincerely and publicly apologize. I’ve reached out to Miguel, the Dodgers and Miguel’s agent to say the same. Once again, I’m sorry.”

In the midst of the fallout from the report, Rojas watched Team Venezuela, who he would have represented in the World Baseball Classic if it weren’t for insurance issues, win the tournament with a victory against the United States in Tuesday’s final.

“It was really special to see my kids kind finding joy in that moment that the third strike was called,” he said, noting that his children were born in the United States. “And they felt Venezuelan the same as I did, and every other family in Venezuela.”

Rojas said he’d moved on after the insurance snag.

“When I made my last post, when I came to spring training, I made a decision of being another fan and supporting from any anywhere that I was going to be,” he said. “Because I knew I wasn’t going to be there anymore. So I had to kind of remove myself from the possibility of playing, and now I’m just becoming another Venezuelan pulling for a team that are getting ready and preparing for something like that.”

A Woman of Substance is premiering tonight on Channel 4 starring Vera legend Brenda Blethyn and Outlander star Jessica Reynolds.

A Woman of Substance draws from author Barbara Taylor Bradford’s novel, widely regarded as amongst the best-selling books ever published.

Channel 4 unveils its fresh adaptation of A Woman of Substance tonight, Wednesday, March 11, featuring actress Brenda Blethyn in her debut role following the conclusion of ITV drama Vera.

Adapted from the identically titled novel, A Woman of Substance follows housemaid Emma Harte as she challenges societal conventions to establish a worldwide business empire.

Spanning dual timelines, the eight-episode series chronicles Emma’s (portrayed by Jessica Reynolds) ascent from her formative hardships through to the present day, where she (Brenda Blethyn) confronts fresh, unforeseen challenges.

Where was A Woman of Substance filmed?

Captured during spring 2025, sequences depicting young Emma in the early 1900s were shot throughout Yorkshire, with the Grade I-listed Georgian residence Broughton Hall serving as Fairley Hall.

Broughton Hall previously featured as a filming venue in Channel 4’s original 1984 adaptation of A Woman of Substance.

Broughton Hall is the 16th Century manor house situated at the centre of the 3,000 acre Broughton Sanctuary estate.

Whilst the property remains unchanged, it’s now encompassed by the sanctuary, housing the Avalon Wellbeing Centre and offering holiday accommodation available for guest bookings.

Production teams were additionally observed at Ilkley Moor, Barnsley Town Hall and at Brodsworth Hall and Gardens in Doncaster.

Speaking about the use of Brodsworth Hall in the series, a representative from English Heritage said: “Last year we were pleased to welcome a production company, filming scenes for an adaption of Barbara Taylor Bradford’s A Woman of Substance.

“Filming took place within our Servants’ Wing, Laburnam Arch and Target House/Range and we are extremely excited and proud to see Brodsworth on the small screen!”.

For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.

Reynolds, who portrays the younger version of Emma Harte, shared her experiences of filming in Yorkshire with Country and Town House.

She said: ‘I know the crew worry about wind and rain, but I just love being able to have nature around me and working off the elements.

“I feel much less self-conscious, and freer.

“Some of the locations were just breathtaking and those are the images that stick in my mind today when I think back to filming; Yorkshire is just stunning.

“Those are some of Emma’s happiest moments too, when she’s so connected to the land – it’s a beautiful thing.”

Meanwhile, the contemporary scenes featuring Vera legend Blethyn, which are supposed to be set in New York, were actually filmed in Liverpool.

This isn’t the first time Liverpool has served as a stand-in for New York in film production, with major films including Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and 2022’s The Batman also shot in the UK city.

A Woman of Substance premieres on Wednesday, March 11, at 9pm on Channel 4.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday urged the Supreme Court to limit the reach of the 2nd Amendment and deny gun rights to “habitual” users of drugs, including marijuana.

But most of the justices sounded skeptical. They questioned whether marijuana users are so dangerous they should not have firearms.

They noted too that President Trump signed a recent executive order to reclassify marijuana as lesser controlled substance.

“Why is this a test case?,” asked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Federal laws on “controlled substances” and the 2nd Amendment created a conflict between gun rights and illegal drugs, but Gorsuch said marijuana users are not seen as a particular danger to the public.

“This is an odd case to have chosen” to resolve this legal dispute, he said.

Most of the justices said they were wary of ruling broadly to decide the legal status of other addictive drugs.

At issue was a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which forbids gun possession by any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The Justice Department says about 300 people per year are charged with a crime under this provision. They include Hunter Biden, the former president’s son, who was charged and convicted of lying about his drug addiction when he applied for a handgun permit.

The case brought together civil libertarians and gun rights advocates, who said millions of Americans could face criminal charges if the government’s view is upheld.

Deputy Solicitor Gen. Sarah Harris, representing the administration, said the court should uphold the law to deny guns to habitual users of unlawful drugs.

“Congress decided it is dangerous to mix firearms with controlled substances,” she said.

But Erin Murphy, a Washington attorney, said gun owners have not been notice that having a handgun at home could lead to a criminal prosecution if they sometimes use marijuana.

She said the court should hand down a “narrow” decision that spares her client.

Ali Hemani, a Texas man, was investigated by the FBI in 2020 for his family’s suspected ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated terrorist group.

When the FBI obtained a warrant to search his home, agents found a Glock pistol and 60 grams of marijuana as well as 4.7 grams of cocaine in his mother’s room. Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with illegal gun possession because he was an unlawful drug user.

But citing the 2nd Amendment, a federal judge and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the charges on the grounds that he was not under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest.

Appealing, the Trump administration said the Supreme Court should uphold the 1968 law and deny guns to those who are “habitual users” of illegal drugs.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said this prosecution “falls well within Congress’s authority to temporarily disarm categories of dangerous persons — here, habitual drug users.”

From the nation’s founding, “habitual drunkards” could be prohibited from having guns and that historic principle supports denying guns to habitual drug users.

The American Civil Liberties Union defended Hemani said the government’s view threatens to broadly extend the reach of the criminal law.

“Like tens of millions of Americans, Ali Hemani owned a handgun for self-defense, keeping it safely secured at home. Like many of those same Americans, he also consumed marijuana a few days a week,” they said in their brief.

“According to the government, those two facts alone sufficed to make him an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance who could face criminal penalties.”