Law weighs in on DUI

GatewaySnayke · Post by **GatewaySnayke** » March 27 07, 1:56 pm

MDCardsFan wrote:There is plenty to disagree with that piece of tripe and none of it diminishes the severity of the offense.

Unless LaRussa drives the team bus, the team has no need to take action as the legal system will provide sufficient punishment for TLR.

No, no, you've got it all wrong.

See, unless La Russa is strung up and eviscerated by the Cardinals ownership in the middle of Roger Dean Stadium, then how are we going to teach Little Billy that if you drink and drive, you could die?

SEVENTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE DIE. He was a danger to himself and OTHER drivers. If he wanted to do something, he should have shot up on STANZOLOL, because only THREE people die from using steroids.

Post by **Bo Hart** » March 27 07, 1:57 pm

GatewaySnayke wrote:To add more to your point: child athletes are more likely to take steroids if they know that a sports star is doing it. Keith Law is apparently excusing steroids, brushing them off as "ehh...only three people died."

I bet if Law went deeper into it than just throwing out a number, he'd probably find that steroids lead to health problems LATER in life.

He's saying that a DUI is putting the lives of other people in danger, making it a lot more severe than using steroids.

Post by **Bo Hart** » March 27 07, 1:59 pm

GatewaySnayke wrote:SEVENTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE DIE. He was a danger to himself and OTHER drivers. If he wanted to do something, he should have shot up on STANZOLOL, because only THREE people die from using steroids.

Now you're just getting absurd.

No where in the article does he condone steroid use.

He is saying that it is laughable that there is a steroid policy, but not there is nothing done to control drunk driving. This, of course, despite the fact that the latter is much more serious.

GatewaySnayke · Post by **GatewaySnayke** » March 27 07, 2:03 pm

Kyle wrote:He does not lump the entire fan base together with quotes (maybe in the "the crowd gave an ovation" part, but not there).

Yes, but the problem is that it has no business being in the article in the first place. There's always going to be someone who has a radical opinion. Out of the millions or so Cardinal fans across the globe, how many actually believe that La Russa should have gotten off?

If I was going to write an article about how great Moon exploration is, I'm not going to include the fact there are people dumb enough to believe that it was shot in a film studio in Hollywood. Those people are idiots, as are the same people who the PB Post quoted. Even saying "some" Cardinal fans makes us look like a bunch of ignorant rednecks who think drunk driving is on par with double parking. Then there's this bit:

Who committed the more egregious violation: Guillermo Mota, caught using steroids last year and suspended for the first 50 games of 2007, or Gustavo Chacin, caught for DUI this month and facing no suspension or penalty? Which is the bigger crime: cheating in sports or driving drunk?

See? Not only does Law have no idea how to write, he DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THE LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY!! Guillermo Mota was NOT cheating in sports, he was breaking the g-darn law!

Popeye_Card · Post by **Popeye_Card** » March 27 07, 2:04 pm

Kyle wrote:
He is saying that it is laughable that there is a steroid policy, but not there is nothing done to control drunk driving. This, of course, despite the fact that the latter is much more serious.

More serious to the general public.

Steroids are a bigger threat to the game, which is why baseball has a more stringint policy on the matter.

Also, I don't see congress holding many DUI grandstanding events. Maybe they should? Nah, they're too busy getting famous baseball players in there to grill them about steroid use. So why complain about MLB and the Cardinals not punishing LaRussa? Shouldn't we be complaining that congress, which creates laws that punish both DUI's and steroids, is spending far more effort on steroids than the drunk driving epidemic?

--P--

GatewaySnayke · Post by **GatewaySnayke** » March 27 07, 2:07 pm

Kyle wrote:
GatewaySnayke wrote:SEVENTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE DIE. He was a danger to himself and OTHER drivers. If he wanted to do something, he should have shot up on STANZOLOL, because only THREE people die from using steroids.
Now you're just getting absurd.

No where in the article does he condone steroid use.

He is saying that it is laughable that there is a steroid policy, but not there is nothing done to control drunk driving. This, of course, despite the fact that the latter is much more serious.

I was exaggerating to make a point.

While Law doesn't condone steroid use, he's trying to downplay the severity of it. Should something be done to players or managers who are given DWI's? I'm not sure.

Post by **Bo Hart** » March 27 07, 2:07 pm

GatewaySnayke wrote:Yes, but the problem is that it has no business being in the article in the first place. There's always going to be someone who has a radical opinion. Out of the millions or so Cardinal fans across the globe, how many actually believe that La Russa should have gotten off?

The opinion is far from extreme. I heard numerous people give similar excuses. Maybe not along the lines of him getting off completely, but them downplaying it big time. In fact, I specifically remember those exact lines being given ("he was tired," "he has long days," etc).

See? Not only does Law have no idea how to write, he DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THE LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY!! Guillermo Mota was NOT cheating in sports, he was breaking the g-darn law!

This is just a leap in assumption.

indyredbird · Post by **indyredbird** » March 27 07, 2:08 pm

Popeye_Card wrote:
Kyle wrote:
He is saying that it is laughable that there is a steroid policy, but not there is nothing done to control drunk driving. This, of course, despite the fact that the latter is much more serious.
More serious to the general public.

Steroids are a bigger threat to the game, which is why baseball has a more stringint policy on the matter.

Also, I don't see congress holding many DUI grandstanding events. Maybe they should? Nah, they're too busy getting famous baseball players in there to grill them about steroid use. So why complain about MLB and the Cardinals not punishing LaRussa? Shouldn't we be complaining that congress, which creates laws that punish both DUI's and steroids, is spending far more effort on steroids than the drunk driving epidemic?

--P--

Congress won't do much on drunk driving as long as Ted Kennedy is in there.

MDCardsFan · Post by **MDCardsFan** » March 27 07, 2:09 pm

Kyle wrote:
GatewaySnayke wrote:To add more to your point: child athletes are more likely to take steroids if they know that a sports star is doing it. Keith Law is apparently excusing steroids, brushing them off as "ehh...only three people died."

I bet if Law went deeper into it than just throwing out a number, he'd probably find that steroids lead to health problems LATER in life.
He's saying that a DUI is putting the lives of other people in danger, making it a lot more severe than using steroids.

That may be true. But MLB has a reponsibility to the product they are putting on the field. It is their direct responsibility to both insure the integrity of the game and even more important, to not tacitly encourage its players to break the law in order to drive better ratings/attendance.

Neither MLB or the Cardinals encouraged LaRussa to go to dinner, consume too much alcohol and drive home. He is a grown man and was arrested for activites committed on his own time. Since his arrest is a misdemeanor, I see no reason to expect his employer to suspend him. I'm quite sure the Florida Judge will show him no deferrence.

Post by **Bo Hart** » March 27 07, 2:12 pm

GatewaySnayke wrote:While Law doesn't condone steroid use, he's trying to downplay the severity of it. Should something be done to players or managers who are given DWI's? I'm not sure.

He does not downplay the severity of it whatsoever. He just says that it pales in comparison to drinking and driving, which I think is pretty much indisputable.

For example:
You: "Hey, Scott Rolen is good."
Me: "Yeah, but Albert Pujols is a lot better. He's historically great."
You: "What? You don't think Rolen is that good?"

Explain how that is any different from what you are doing right now.

Popeye_Card wrote:Steroids are a bigger threat to the game, which is why baseball has a more stringint policy on the matter.

It depends on if you view it from a "role model" point of view or not. I think a player getting a DUI is worse than taking steroids from that aspect.

Also, I don't see congress holding many DUI grandstanding events. Maybe they should? Nah, they're too busy getting famous baseball players in there to grill them about steroid use. So why complain about MLB and the Cardinals not punishing LaRussa? Shouldn't we be complaining that congress, which creates laws that punish both DUI's and steroids, is spending far more effort on steroids than the drunk driving epidemic?

This is a good point.