Facing truth of Hancock's death could bring change
By Bill McClellan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/02/2007
"Be careful of the insincerity of some media people … trying to befriend you, then try to slam you with something that they want to turn this into, some kind of story that's not all sweet."
What Tony La Russa said he told players about media coverage
It's easier to manage a baseball team than it is to manage the news, and in that regard, it would seem especially difficult to turn the death of Josh Hancock into something sweet.
He died Sunday morning shortly after midnight when he ran into the back of a tow truck that was assisting a car on Highway 40. In those first hours after his death, everybody wondered the same thing, but nobody wanted to put a voice to the suspicion. Was booze involved?
Let me ask the question in a different way. How many accidents involving 29-year-old men late on a Saturday night don't involve booze? The correct answer would be: Very few. Although details remain sketchy and toxicology reports aren't yet available, witnesses have come forward to say that Hancock was drinking on Saturday night.
Still, there has been an understandable desire to "honor Hancock's memory" by turning his death into a reprise of the death of Darryl Kile, the Cardinals pitcher who died of natural causes five years ago. Kile was a seemingly healthy young man. His death was a lightning bolt from a clear sky. Unforeseen and unavoidable.
A cultural anthropologist would not say the same about Hancock's death. He played in a stadium named after a beer, and he played for a manager who recently was arrested and charged with driving under the influence — and who then received a standing ovation at a Florida ballpark the next morning.
Drinking and driving is part of our culture.
Because so many of us have done it — and do it — we forgive those who get caught. When La Russa was arrested this spring, I wrote a column. There but for the grace of God go I. Church of the Second Chance. And so on.
Leonard Little of the Rams left a downtown hotel bar, ran a light and killed a woman. He's still a hero to many. Rob Ramage of the Blues was charged with impaired driving after an accident in which his passenger was killed. He's still a fan favorite and was cheered at last year's alumni game.
Of course, it's not just athletes. We forgive everybody. Ted Kennedy was drinking before he drove off the bridge at Chappaquiddick and killed Mary Jo Kopechne. He's now a senior statesman for the left. August Busch IV left a bar in Tucson with a young woman in 1983, and she died moments later in a one-car crash. After a long investigation that went all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court, Busch was not charged. He now heads the brewery and appears in television commercials for it.
George W. Bush got a DUI as a young man.
So anybody who thinks that the death of a baseball player is going to change the culture is mistaken.
It's a bit like handguns. There was a time when I favored some sort of gun control. In a span of just a few months, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II were shot with handguns. No matter who you were, you had to like one of those guys. Things might change, I thought. Nothing did.
But maybe incremental change is all we can hope for. We have learned that a restaurant manager offered to call a cab for Hancock moments before his death. That ought to be a lesson. A rule for every drinker: If a bartender suggests a cab, you need a cab.
There are a couple of ways we can treat this story. We can do it the La Russa way. Pretend that it's sad, but sweet. After all, we don't "know" the facts. Then when the toxicology report comes in — hey, it's already old news.
Or we can be honest about the story. It takes nothing away from Hancock's memory to say he was drinking before his fatal crash. Nice people sometimes drink and drive. That's the truth of it. And if the truth about Hancock's death causes one person to stop and think before having that one last drink before heading home, that's a good thing. If the truth causes one person to decide to take that offer of a cab, that's a good thing, too.
Dealing with this honestly is the only way to honor the memory of Josh Hancock.
In those first hours after his death, everybody wondered the same thing, but nobody wanted to put a voice to the suspicion. Was booze involved?
Let me ask the question in a different way. How many accidents involving 29-year-old men late on a Saturday night don't involve booze? The correct answer would be: Very few. Although details remain sketchy and toxicology reports aren't yet available, witnesses have come forward to say that Hancock was drinking on Saturday night.
Still, there has been an understandable desire to "honor Hancock's memory" by turning his death into a reprise of the death of Darryl Kile, the Cardinals pitcher who died of natural causes five years ago. Kile was a seemingly healthy young man. His death was a lightning bolt from a clear sky. Unforeseen and unavoidable.
A cultural anthropologist would not say the same about Hancock's death. He played in a stadium named after a beer, and he played for a manager who recently was arrested and charged with driving under the influence — and who then received a standing ovation at a Florida ballpark the next morning.
All the debate and discussion that has surrounded this topic, I'm surprised that there was not more reaction to this thread, especially the above; some forum members took considerable heat for expressing similar sentiments.
That said, McClellan's piece really resonated for me.
In those first hours after his death, everybody wondered the same thing, but nobody wanted to put a voice to the suspicion. Was booze involved?
Let me ask the question in a different way. How many accidents involving 29-year-old men late on a Saturday night don't involve booze? The correct answer would be: Very few. Although details remain sketchy and toxicology reports aren't yet available, witnesses have come forward to say that Hancock was drinking on Saturday night.
Still, there has been an understandable desire to "honor Hancock's memory" by turning his death into a reprise of the death of Darryl Kile, the Cardinals pitcher who died of natural causes five years ago. Kile was a seemingly healthy young man. His death was a lightning bolt from a clear sky. Unforeseen and unavoidable.
A cultural anthropologist would not say the same about Hancock's death. He played in a stadium named after a beer, and he played for a manager who recently was arrested and charged with driving under the influence — and who then received a standing ovation at a Florida ballpark the next morning.
All the debate and discussion that has surrounded this topic, I'm surprised that there was not more reaction to this thread, especially the above; some forum members took considerable heat for expressing similar sentiments.
That said, McClellan's piece really resonated for me.
Did I miss anything? I didn't see anyone saying that Hancock didn't drink that night. I don't recall any debate or discussion surrounding the topic you mentioned. Maybe I missed it.
In those first hours after his death, everybody wondered the same thing, but nobody wanted to put a voice to the suspicion. Was booze involved?
Let me ask the question in a different way. How many accidents involving 29-year-old men late on a Saturday night don't involve booze? The correct answer would be: Very few. Although details remain sketchy and toxicology reports aren't yet available, witnesses have come forward to say that Hancock was drinking on Saturday night.
Still, there has been an understandable desire to "honor Hancock's memory" by turning his death into a reprise of the death of Darryl Kile, the Cardinals pitcher who died of natural causes five years ago. Kile was a seemingly healthy young man. His death was a lightning bolt from a clear sky. Unforeseen and unavoidable.
A cultural anthropologist would not say the same about Hancock's death. He played in a stadium named after a beer, and he played for a manager who recently was arrested and charged with driving under the influence — and who then received a standing ovation at a Florida ballpark the next morning.
All the debate and discussion that has surrounded this topic, I'm surprised that there was not more reaction to this thread, especially the above; some forum members took considerable heat for expressing similar sentiments.
That said, McClellan's piece really resonated for me.
Did I miss anything? I didn't see anyone saying that Hancock didn't drink that night. I don't recall any debate or discussion surrounding the topic you mentioned. Maybe I missed it.
A better question may be how do the same people react if a BAC of .07 or .05 comes back? Do we then make the assumption that he was really drunker than that at the moment of impact, or does everyone apologize for assuming the worst? I ain't banking on the latter.
There is simply no point in assuming he was drunk when the BAC will tell us soon enough. There is plenty of times for learning lessons.
I also see no reasonable correlation between Hancock and LaRussa. Hancock was 29 years old. I seriously doubt he saw TLR get a DUI and said, "Cool. I'm gonna start drinking." These are grownups for crying out loud.
Accidents happen. And lots of people drink beer. Sometimes people that drink beer have accidents. Sometimes that beer might not be to blame. But we like to assume in all cases where beer and accidents are involved, that the beer was responsible.
Now, having a friend that was killed by being hit and dragged underneath a truck for over a 1/4 of a mile by a multiple-suspended drunk driver that was going about 80 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, while she and her friends were enjoying a bike ride, I don't have the utmost tolerance for people that drink and drive.
The fact that Josh Hancock may have a had a few drinks the night that he ran his SUV into a tow truck doesn't doesn't make the situation any less "sad" for me, however. And sometimes it's just as important to have respect for the recently departed than it is to hope that future generations will take something from that unfortunate death.
The bottom line is he was killed in a car wreck. I'm personally not interested in finding out if his death should be considered "less sad" because he was drunk. If that's "pretending that it's sad," you can chalk me up in that category. And I'm not sure where the "sweet" part of this story comes into play.
