Angels fan in the "Angry" stage of grief

Some of the best editorializing from the Nick Adenhart tragedy has come from RevHalofan at Halos Heaven. The Braves have been on both sides of his argument, having watched Rafael Furcal go through his DUI episode and seen Jordan Schafer cast-off for the mere suspicion of HGH. Rev is barking up the right tree with regards to the double standard that baseball applies to drunk driving vs. PED's.

7 months ago gondeee 31 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I just read that not 15 mins ago. Well written article.

You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all.

by Smoltz's Beard on Apr 10, 2009 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Every time something like this happens, I hope it serves as a wake up call to the public at large. It never does. People always think they are invincible, and never think of the harm the might do to others.

This shit needs to stop.

"People need help, and you know how to help them."

by VegasAces on Apr 10, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wish more casual fans weren't idiots

Because I’m going to the home opener, and I know there are going to be thousands of people who have no idea of what’s been happening and are going to drink themselves into a drunken stupor, and eventually hop into a car and try to drive somewhere.

No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.

by royhobbs on Apr 10, 2009 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Don’t you understand though? It doesn’t effect them so it’s not important and it will never happen to them.

by Smoltz's Beard on Apr 10, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right. And people might be away of things right now, but in 6 months the majority of people are going to forget this whole thing ever happened.

It is a pretty difficult issue that I can’t see changing any time soon. Not that I wish it would, but realistically I don’t think anything changes because of this tragedy.

I mean, look what happened to the Blue Jays when they weren’t allowed to sell the other day? They only drew like 15 or 16,000 people…

"Here comes Bream! Here's the throw to the plate! He is...safe! Braves win! Braves win! Braves win! Braves win!...Braves win!"

by jug on Apr 10, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder, though. Does baseball get itself into trouble with such a powerful union? In football, it seems, someone commits a crime (DUI, dogfighting, whatever) and they get dragged into the commissioner’s office by their ear. We need a bit more of that in baseball.

by kalesi on Apr 10, 2009 12:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Here are my two cents:

Yes, drunk driving is bad. Yes, it should be avoided like the plague. But I think many of the posters here (of legal drinking age of course) have probably gotten behind the wheel of a car after a ballgame (and a few beers). It is VERY easy to think you’re fine, and subsequently get behind the wheel of a car (w/out realizing that you are probably above the “legal limit”). To that effect, it is very easy to get away with.

How many people drove drunk during college or high school or at some point in their adult life and got away with it? Far too many to count. My point is this: I can almost guarantee that in a group of 50 people condemning the guy that killed Adenhart, 10-15 have driven while above the legal limit.

I am not saying that drunk driving is or ever should be OK, but I do think there is a difference between someone who does it habitually (like the guy who killed Adenhart) and someone who does it once and, by the grace of some greater power, does not hurt anyone. If you fall into the latter category, it is extremely easy to forget how your actions could have killed someone.

I appreciate this guy’s anger, and I think it is fully justified … but in my opinion, a one-time drunk driver (who doesn’t hurt anyone and accepts the legal ramifications for his/her actions and does not drunk drive anymore) is far less morally reprehensible than Barry Bonds.

I know this post may elicit some less-than-happy responses, but I thought some of this was worth mentioning. Please be gentle.

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 10, 2009 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You make some valid points. I personally got a DUI back in college (2003 I think? Can’t believe it was that long ago), although there were some extenuating circumstances surrounding the situation that I won’t get into now. It wasn’t the first time I did it either.

And I agree with you, there’s a difference between someone who gets behind the wheel after a few beers, and even if they are over the legal limit; and someone who does so with no regard to himself or anyone else. I cannot fathom how someone can drive 80mph, ignoring stop lights/signs in that state.

by Smoltz's Beard on Apr 10, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never once.

I’ve had my share of benders and drunkenness, but never once has the thought occurred to me that it’s a good idea to hop behind the wheel of a car after drinking. I got lit up in Vegas a few weeks ago and bought a beer for a homeless man at a 7-Eleven and almost took up an offer with a prostitute, but when it came time to try to get back to my hotel, a taxi was the first word out of my mouth.

My dad got a DUI once, and he had a 22-year clean driving record prior that turned to shit because of it. I don’t really want to make the same mistake.

No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.

by royhobbs on Apr 10, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can really respect that

But I have friends who have driven drunk and lived to regret it (w/out hurting anyone in the process). I think everyone makes mistakes, and one would hope that a “mistake” does not result in a lost life.

Hypothetically speaking, if Adenhart were killed by a soccer mom who was occupied by screaming kids/talking on her cellphone (and blew a red light), what would we think?

My point is this: When you’re operating a 2 ton vehicle, your attention should be on the road … and alcohol is not the only thing that distracts people. Even if you have never driven while intoxicated, Adenhart’s death should remind us all that driving recklessly (whether you’re drunk, preoccupied w/ the kids, picking a burning cigarette butt off the floorboard, or eating a Big Mac) can and does kill people.

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 10, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You bring up good valid points

And it’s only a matter of time before a pro-athlete is killed/kills via other factors than alcohol, before these questions come into the spotlight.

If Mom were the killer, she would definitely have a lot more leeway, because of the conditions you bring up – most people are guilty of one, other or both, talking on a cell or dealing with children. Also because she wasn’t under a mind-altering substance taken of her own free will, there would be more willingness to forgive there. The guy who killed Adenhart broke the law twice the minute he stepped behind the wheel because he was already drunk and had a suspended license. The fact that he hit another car, killing the passengers, and then subsequently fled the scene leads to the lack of mercy for him.

No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.

by royhobbs on Apr 10, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree

The guy who killed Adenhart should spend the rest of his life in jail …

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 10, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Killing THREE people while driving drunk...

… you better believe he’s going away for a long, long time. Doesn’t do justice though.

Oh, Bobby.

by sdp on Apr 10, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

I dont believe he deserves any mercy, Suspended liscense, drunk and fled the scene! Send him away

ALABAMA leading the NCAA with infractions since 2001

by auskip07 on Apr 10, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the hole in your thinking: “in my opinion, a one-time drunk driver (who doesn’t hurt anyone and accepts the legal ramifications for his/her actions and does not drunk drive anymore) is far less morally reprehensible than Barry Bonds.”

The problem is this: the drunk driver has next to zero control over whether or not he/she hurts anyone. If there was some kind of skill involved in avoiding accidents while drunk, I could agree with you that as long as someone does it and nothing bad happens, it’s not such a big deal. But those that do it and miss do so by sheer luck (or the grace of some greater power, as you mention). I can’t let an intoxicated driver off the hook just because he/she happened to not hurt anyone on the way home. As for accepting the legal ramifications, that’s all well and good but it doesn’t bring the victim back. I imagine the guy that’s been caught in Adenhart’s death will accept all the legal ramifications. I’m afraid that’s little consolation for the families of Adenhart and the other two (possibly three) who perished alongside him.

I acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes, but it’s not enough for me to just “hope that a mistake does not result in a lost life.” Physically speaking, intoxication is (in most cases) a far severer impairment than ordinary “distraction,” so soccer Mom gets some leeway, but she should still face far harsher punishment for being distracted in any way while driving. There’s no excuse for any interferences with your driving (be they cell phones, children, cigarettes, or Big Macs), because it’s other people’s lives you’re putting at risk, not just your own.

by tgthree on Apr 10, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It could be argued that drunk driving IS a skill.

SWAGGA LIKE...whoever the fuck is not walking people
President, CEO, and chairman of the Brandon Jones fan club

by bigjoe on Apr 10, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said, but I still personally find a big difference between someone who gets behind the wheel drunk and follows the speed limit, obeys traffic signs, etc…and the person who just doesn’t give a fuck like this particular guy. It’s illegal in both regards for sure, but…I dunno…hard to explain I guess.

by Smoltz's Beard on Apr 10, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Once again, getting behind the wheel drunk, the best you can do is HOPE you just happen to follow the speed limit and obey traffic signs. (Keep in mind I’m talking about people who are legitimately sloshed, not the guy with a BAC of 0.09.) Good intentions being what they may, I don’t really give someone credit because they happen to follow the traffic rules. Believe me, if they do so, it’s out of luck, not skill, and because of that, they are still needlessly endangering the lives of others.

by tgthree on Apr 10, 2009 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See ...

that is my point right there. If you’re at a .90, you’re still drunk driving. The law doesn’t make a distinction unless someone gets hurt.

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 10, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

".90" should read ".09"

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 10, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure I understand your point here. When you’re talking about making laws, there is always going to be some point where the law doesn’t distinguish. I mean the lawmakers have to set some arbitrary limit saying “this much is too much.” Now if you want to split hairs and say that 0.10 is really “impaired,” I don’t have enough science to really argue with you. I am falling back on the “legal” limit because I figure they’ve done at least some background research on intoxication levels. I do take issue with saying that the law doesn’t make a distinction until someone gets hurt; if you get pulled over in a routine traffic stop, the law still makes no distinction: you are drunk whether your BAC is 0.09 or 0.90.

What I am saying to Smoltz’s Beard has to do with control. He was asserting a distinction between someone who “tries” to drive safely while intoxicated and someone who just doesn’t care. I don’t know the difference between a BAC of 0.08 and a BAC of 0.09, but again the law has to draw the line somewhere. I was merely granting him that perhaps someone at 0.09 does have some control over whether they obey the speed limits.

by tgthree on Apr 10, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm bad at expressing my viewpoints

But at the end of the day … this is what I’ve been trying to say: There are lots of people who have driven in the .09ish range (which is still wrong/still being intoxicated/still breaking the law/still risking the lives of others) who refuse to associate themselves w/ people like the guy who killed Adenhart. They shake their heads in disgust and wonder how people could be so careless. Not saying everyone does that, but there are many hypocrites out there.

I’m with you on everything you’re saying, only saying I don’t get the hypocrites.

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 10, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s perfectly fair, although I have to say I can distinguish between someone that’s driven once at .09, and the guy who killed Adenhart, who also happens to have been convicted of DUI before, and who was driving with a suspended license. I mean this guy was literally a disaster waiting to happen.

Somebody that had three beers at a cocktail party and then drove home at 0.09…I just can’t put them on the same level as the guy that hit Adenhart. Both are still wrong, both are still illegal, and when it comes to the law, I don’t have a problem making no distinction (actually the law IS going to make a distinction; it appears Adenhart’s killer will be charged with murder, whereas our friend from the cocktail party would get “only” manslaughter charges). But when it comes to the level of irresponsibility, there’s definitely a difference.

Anyway, I see what you’re saying, but the real point here is twofold: 1) as Rev on Halos Heaven says, players convicted of DUI should get the same public shame as players caught using steroids; and 2) there is no reason why, under any circumstance, any individual ought to be getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while impaired (whether their BAC is 0.09 or 9.00).

by tgthree on Apr 10, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said.

by Smoltz's Beard on Apr 10, 2009 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alright, I was just making sure we’re on the same page.

by Smoltz's Beard on Apr 10, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure I communicated my point as well as I could have ...

I was more or less responding to Rev’s assertion that anyone who drinks and drives is worse than Barry Bonds. I think drinking and driving should be avoided at all costs (i.e., spend the money on a cab), but A LOT of people drink and drive and get away with it. Then, those same people turn around and shake their heads when things like this happen. It’s a bit hypocritical in my opinion. I am by no means condoning drunk driving, and I apologize if that is how I came off, but I thought it was a point that had to be made.

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 10, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to say that I can’t see how Barry Bonds is worse than a drunk driver Barry Bonds. As Rev points out, Bonds’ actions, reprehensible though they are, have never directly endangered the lives of others (talking specifically about his steroid use, of course). Any driver who ventures out onto a road intoxicated DOES, DIRECTLY, put the lives of many other people at risk. Keep in mind I am NOT defending Bonds; the man is a moral cesspool, but driving drunk brings about danger on a whole different level.

As for those who’ve driven drunk and gotten away with it, well, I do believe in second chances, and if they truly have committed themselves to ensure that it never happens again, I can allow them a headshake in Bonds’ general direction.

by tgthree on Apr 10, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I w/ you ...

but how many .09 drunk drivers (who have gotten away w/ it) shake their heads at the drunk drivers that kill people. You’re right, there’s a difference between .09 and being completely sloshed, but the law doesn’t make that distinction until someone gets hurt.

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 10, 2009 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

(that first sentence was supposed to be a question)

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 10, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to disagree...

I agree that drinking and driving and then killing someone is worse than A-Rod taking steroids. But Joba making a stupid mistake, which I’m sure many here have done(myself included, something I don’t plan on doing it again), and someone deliberately and repeatedly cheating is a different story.

I think I may take this a step further than Franky, even the person who does accidentally kill someone, I think should be eventually forgiven. Your in an altered state and perhaps an alcoholic or some other disorder and you make a tragic choice, a choice that if you were sober you wouldn’t make. Someone who makes that mistake should be sent away for manslaughter, but should be able to one day be forgiven(I have never lost someone to a drunk driver, so I know, it’s easy for me to say). This guy sounds like a scumbag and should be put away for a long time.

Now that I think about it, I think Giambi, A-Rod, Pettite, Schafer, and others who have admitted to using and are truly sorry should also be forgiven. Bonds and Clemens shouldn’t, because it seems they have no interest in admitting their guilt or apologizing.

Another thing, I agree with beard how someone who gets behind the wheel and tries to drive safely is different than someone who gets behind the wheel lit and doesn’t give a shit.

by MatM on Apr 10, 2009 4:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I can remember the one instance where I’ve driven home when I shouldn’t have. I had 3 drinks at Taco Mac watching the game, and didn’t give myself enough time before I drove. I was probably sitting at about .10 when I left-I wasn’t feeling at all impaired, and I took a few moments to ponder my capacity to drive before heading out.

But even if you don’t feel impaired sitting on a bar stool, thinking about driving, you know when you get behind the wheel. Your peripheral vision is useless because your focus is lacking. Your brain is unable to process both a focal point and also to recognize and track things that aren’t directly in your line of sight.

I live like half a mile from the Taco Mac, so by the time I even noticed that I was impaired, I was pretty much home anyway, but it was still a stupid decision. Despite being barely over the legal limit, it was enough to be extremely dangerous-a pedestrian at night expecting me to see them could have been seriously injured. I haven’t done this since. This is the type of mistake that’s acceptable once-and what you should do is pull over, park, and call someone as soon as you notice impairment.

Now, what I can’t understand are people who are completely sloshed and think they can drive. Sure, alcohol impairs judgement, but I’ve never been at the point where I can’t walk in a straight line and yet believe I can drive. I’ve never even known anyone who was that drunk and wanted to drive. So I can’t offer forgiveness for people due to “impaired decision making” because I’ve seen little enough evidence of it. I imagine anyone who is clearly quite drunk and thinks they can drive is probably so stupid that they’re not safe behind a wheel completely sober.

by Bronn on Apr 11, 2009 2:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs