GatewayRedbirds.com

Steve, you're basically saying that this doesn't concern you so much because it doesn't have much to do with a team you root for. But, that the act itself, if you were to discuss it, the wrongness of the situation shouldn't be trivialized or dismissed. He drank too much to be driving, and did so on little sleep and while taking prescription drugs, big no-nos.

I think that most people on this board would agree with those things, myself included, unless I have been reading opinions incorrectly for the past however many days. I think it's just the vocabulary that's making this whole thing a little blurry.

The article was classic Law storytelling, moralizing, and name-dropping. Without being so informative as to actually do so. More in that, "I have a secret and I can't tell you, because I worked for a Major League baseball team. Annoying? Maybe, but I'm better than you. The name's Keith Law, by the way" kinda way.

skmsw wrote:With the excuses, the rationalizations, the attempts to minimize the seriousness of the behavior, the belief that because "everyone does it" or "it happens every day" it is somehow less problematic.

Too many people are willing to excuse this because it happened to a Cardinal. Unusually for me, that is actually less important to me than the fact that -- too many people are willing to excuse this because it could have been them -- and the belief that if it is something they do, then it can't be all that big a deal -- the mindset that if I do it, then it is not a serious problem, it is everybody over-reacting.

I agree completely, but that is not the article that Keith Law wrote. He makes no such subtle point, nor any attempt to understand where defensive fans might be coming from. Instead, he suggests the need for some kind of draconian policy based on a threat he has largely conjured up.

G. Keenan wrote:
He then presents this false choice, accept alcohol rehabilitation or resign. In what world are those the only two options? And if TLR has no alcohol problem his choice is "or resign?" Offering up that dichotomy is an insidious way to imply that TLR has an alcohol problem, a conclusion that there is no evidence to support. But why wouldn't he, if alchohol abuse is so rampant among MLB? Guilty by association.

Yeah, exactly what good with alcohol rehab do for Tony LaRussa? Does he have a drinking problem? I assume no. Mitchell Paige did, and it clearly affected his work at the end. Tony LaRussa DID drink and drive. Going to an alcohol rehab course would not prevent him from doing so again--he didn't have a drinking problem before. What will keep him from doing it again is the embarassment he's already feeling over the incident. I'm sure we'll never see another arrest for him again.

--P--

Popeye_Card wrote:Going to an alcohol rehab course would not prevent him from doing so again--he didn't have a drinking problem before.

I don't know exactly how it works in Florida but without exception every single person I know that has gotten a DUI in Missouri and has had to go to some sort of rehab. Whether it be eight hours, or eighty hours, depending on the severity and recurrence. I have a buddy in Florida that got a DUI now that I think about it and he had to do the same, now he has a breathalyzer installed in his car, and it was a similar first offense. So I'm sure that Tony WILL have to take similar measures as part of his probation or whatever sentence he is handed.

Popeye_Card wrote:Nobody is excusing anything.

I disagree. I've seen plenty of excuses.

Nothing that has come out of LaRussa's incident--the media talking about it, Keith Law recommending suspensions, etc.--isn't going to change the way people drink and drive in this country.

LaRussa is just one of the crowd breaking the law, and putting people in danger. The problem is not LaRussa. The problem is that there's a large crowd, and apparently the controls in place are not doing the trick at reducing the crowd to an acceptable number.

--P--

On those points we probably agree completely.

Steve, you're basically saying that this doesn't concern you so much because it doesn't have much to do with a team you root for.

I'm saying that I hate the fact that the media even covers stuff like this; it should not be news and it is not a sports story. I do not feel any differently about the manager of my favorite baseball team today.

I agree with anyone who wants to ignore this completely as a sports story, and who wants to ignore it as far as the impact it has on their enjoyment of Cardinal baseball. I don't pay attention to news about the private lives of celebrities and sports figures, it does not change my enjoyment of the movie, song, or game.

skmsw wrote: Too many people are willing to excuse this because it happened to a Cardinal. Unusually for me, that is actually less important to me than the fact that -- too many people are willing to excuse this because it could have been them -- and the belief that if it is something they do, then it can't be all that big a deal! If I do it, then it is not a serious problem, it is everybody over-reacting.

I don't see anyone excusing it. Would anyone here change their opinion if this were a Cub, or a Laker, or a Colt? I wouldn't. Dominic Rhodes of the Colts was busted for this very thing a few weeks ago. He apologized, the law will deal with it. No big fuss. What are we supposed to do? Shun? Boo? Be ashamed as Cardinal fans?

It's whatever sort of extra indignation and punishment people like Law seem to want that I don't understand or agree with. It's bad, just like driving 80mph is bad. Punishment or fines of some sort will come down. That is how it should be dealt with, and it will.

Saying he's tired isn't an excuse, it's likely a fact given what we know. The only reason I brought that up before is because it's pertinent to the issue of him falling asleep which Law puts forth as some sort of proof of just how drunk he was. Larussa is guilty of some terrible judgement here, but to imply that he's a drunk or was on some kind of bender isn't accurate either. There's no excusing going on here, and it's not something to be cavalier about. It's simply understandable and relatable in this case and I'm not inclined to condemn the man. If that's what Law is looking for, I think he's got an uphill battle and there's a valid reason for that.

Saying he's tired isn't an excuse, it's likely a fact given what we know.

I think the fact that it was midnight would probably serve as enough evidence that he "likely" was tired. BUT . . .

The only reason I brought that up before is because it's pertinent to the issue of him falling asleep which Law and ot some sort of proof of just how drunk he was

I think the proof of "how drunk he was" (and of how likely it is that fatigue did or did not play a factor in his "falling asleep") comes from the police report, according to which he couldn't say the alphabet, stand up straight, speak without slurring, or make his eyes both move in the same direction at the same time.

It's simply understandable and relatable in this case

You see it differently than I do, and I'm OK with that, but from my vantage point, no matter who he is (e.g. this could be on the social forum about the guy who lives up the street from me), having a BAL of .09 some three to four hours after his last drink, passing out in traffic with the engine running and the car in gear, being difficult to revive when found, and showing the symptoms I noted above, is not simple, is not understandable, is not relatable. You see it differently; America she's'a great country.

Popeye wrote:Tony LaRussa DID drink and drive. Going to an alcohol rehab course would not prevent him from doing so again--he didn't have a drinking problem before. What will keep him from doing it again is the embarassment he's already feeling over the incident. I'm sure we'll never see another arrest for him again.

We really do not know whether TLR has a drinking problem or not. We do not know what will or will not keep him from drinking and driving, and even if we think we know this is the first time he has been caught, we have no way of knowing how many other times he has driven while intoxicated.

One definition of a "drinking problem" is, continuing a pattern (amount, frequency) of drinking after that pattern led to problems in living (such as an arrest, public shame, etc). So if he (or anyone) continues to drink and drive in similar fashion AFTER experiencing this, he could be considered as having a "drinking problem," because people in control of the drinking and setting appropriate priorities and using healthy judgment would not risk a repeat of this -- they would alter their behavior.

Whether he ever gets caught again or not. Whether society at large likes to think "everyone does it" and "it's normal" or not.

G. Keenan wrote:And if TLR has no alcohol problem his choice is "or resign?"

Some people will argue that the fact he was drunk driving indicates that he has an alcohol problem, and I would agree. That's not the same thing as being an alcoholic, and it's probably not the sort of problem where rehab would be of any use.

I do not like policies where employers attempt to manage the lives of their employees. It's really not their place to be doing that, and they have way too much power over our lives already. Whatever consequences there are for drunk driving should apply to everyone regardless of whether they have a job in baseball.

Kyle wrote:And no, just because there are not rules does not mean they encourage it... it just means that there are not enough consequences.

I think a lot of people would disagree with you. It seems to me that many (myself included) have bashed MLB for tacitly encouraging steroid use by aggressively marketing the homerun chases and doing little to nothing to stop steroid use by its players. Sort of a wink-wink, nod-nod if you will.

But we are probably talking semantics.

skmsw wrote:not understandable, is not relatable

Saying that something is understandable or relatable is not the same thing as saying it is acceptable or excusable. I think you're missing that distinction. Is it not OK to express sympathy for someone even when they have done something that is clearly wrong?