But in reality it was not the drug angle that seemed to be the big issue with the jury. Two members were quoted as saying they "didn't see any intent to suggest illegal drugs." And another that "as a coach, he didn't tell the [hospitalized player] to do anything wrong."
So what was it that got to the jury? Maybe it was that the principal who decided not to renew the whistleblower's probationary contract was none other than the wife of the coach who had recommended the drink. It is not clear from the article what the defense argument was, but from another comment by a juror it appears it might have been that the wife/principal was unaware of the incident.
If so that didn't sit well, as the juror put it: "I found it hard to believe that a husband and wife would not communicate on that issue."
In hindsight, I bet that seems pretty obvious to the employer as well.