PDA

View Full Version : Josh Hancock RIP



Matt700wlw
04-29-2007, 12:28 PM
:(

I'm trying to find information

NorrisHopper30
04-29-2007, 12:30 PM
Former Redleg passed away in a car accident this morning, he was a St Louis Cardinal and their game with the Cubs has been postponed due to this

More information found in this press release
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20070429&content_id=1936551&vkey=pr_stl&fext=.jsp&c_id=stl

Family and friends of Hancock in my prayers..

Matt700wlw
04-29-2007, 12:30 PM
This is horrible

:(

Matt700wlw
04-29-2007, 12:30 PM
nm

Yachtzee
04-29-2007, 12:31 PM
Very sad. RIP Josh Hancock.

Ron Madden
04-29-2007, 12:32 PM
:(

I'm trying to find information

Just heard that on the radio.

Cubs Cards game canceled tonight.

RIP Josh .

Joseph
04-29-2007, 12:33 PM
Wow, terrible terrible news.

jojo
04-29-2007, 12:41 PM
prayers out to his family and loved ones....

Willy
04-29-2007, 12:43 PM
Kile now this. wow, very sad.

Degenerate39
04-29-2007, 12:44 PM
That's sad I remember seeing him play for the Reds.

CrackerJack
04-29-2007, 12:45 PM
Yeah wow, first Lidle now Hancock. In addition to the other death of the player I'm forgetting out in Colorado not too many years ago?

OnBaseMachine
04-29-2007, 12:45 PM
Very very sad. RIP Josh.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the Cards organization.

Reds Fanatic
04-29-2007, 12:46 PM
Just horrible news. :(

BCubb2003
04-29-2007, 12:47 PM
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

St. Louis Cardinals relief pitcher Josh Hancock was killed early Sunday in an accident on Highway 40 (Interstate 64), just west of Compton Avenue, authorities said.

Hancock's Ford Explorer slammed into the rear of a tow truck that was parked in the far left westbound lane shortly after 12:30 a.m. The tow truck driver, who was seated in the vehicle at the time, was unhurt.

He told police that his emergency lights were on, and that he honked his horn when he saw the Explorer approaching in his rear view mirror, but that the Exploer didn't slow down or swerve to avoid the collision.

At the time of the accident, the tow truck driver was assisting a motorist from an earlier accident.

Hancock, 29, was pronounced dead at the scene.

Unassisted
04-29-2007, 12:47 PM
Yeah wow, first Lidle now Hancock. In addition to the other death of the player I'm forgetting out in Colorado not too many years ago?

This is the second time the Cardinals have lost a pitcher tragically in the last 5 years. Darryl Kile died in his hotel room on June 22, 2002.

redsfan30
04-29-2007, 12:48 PM
Horrible, horrible news.

:(

cincrazy
04-29-2007, 12:48 PM
Absolutely tragic news. Just goes to show that you should never take one single day for granted on this Earth.

RIP Josh Hancock

hebroncougar
04-29-2007, 12:50 PM
Wow, horrible news. RIP, prayers to the family.

reds44
04-29-2007, 12:51 PM
R.i.p

GSURedsfan
04-29-2007, 12:54 PM
Hancock, although things did not go well for him here. Watching him in the Phillies system, the guy was a hard worker and always wanted to be the best.

RIP Josh

RedFanAlways1966
04-29-2007, 12:55 PM
Very sad news. It leaves a pit in my stomach. :(

RIP Josh.

Team Clark
04-29-2007, 01:00 PM
Just awful. My prayers to his family and the Cardinals Organization.

harangatang
04-29-2007, 01:05 PM
That's awful.

redsfan4445
04-29-2007, 01:06 PM
WOIW i was shocked to see that on the news... RIP Josh.. guess we will find out more what happened.. i wonder if he fell asleep or he droped his cell to not hear the tow truck hitting his horn.. wow so sad:(

crazybob60
04-29-2007, 01:11 PM
This is sad, horrible news. Just last year, my buddy went to O'Malley's in the Alley after one of the games against the Cards, and low and behold a little after midnight, here comes Josh Hancock and about 2/3 of the rest of the Cards team into the bar. Evidently Josh had lived right above the bar when he played for the Reds and he strolled in just like a regular and was making drinks and such for his teammates. My buddy says that he talked to it with Hancock and a lot of the rest of the Cards. He has some stories and such and looking back on it, it is some funny stories....this headline though is just so tragic. I just tried to get ahold of my friend, but couldn't, I don't know if he knows yet. The one story that stuck out was when my friend asked Hancock about David Eckstein and if they hang out. He says they didn't and said some other things as well. The rest of the story is pretty funny too. If this little post is inappropriate here, let me know and I will take it down, just thought I would share a little Josh Hancock moment. RIP my friend...

Cigar2
04-29-2007, 01:16 PM
SHOCKED!!! By the very sad news..:( My thoughts go to his family.

savafan
04-29-2007, 01:30 PM
This is the second time the Cardinals have lost a pitcher tragically in the last 5 years. Darryl Kile died in his hotel room on June 22, 2002.

And the second time in two years that a pitcher who previously played with both the Reds and Phillies were killed in horrible accidents.

tripleaaaron
04-29-2007, 01:40 PM
Just a tragedy, only 29. RIP Josh, or as Yahoo said, John Hancock.

harangatang
04-29-2007, 01:43 PM
And the second time in two years that a pitcher who previously played with both the Reds and Phillies were killed in horrible accidents.If I were Elizardo Ramirez I would be shaking in my shoes right now.

oneupper
04-29-2007, 01:45 PM
Hancock had found a nice niche in the Cards bullpen as their workhorse. (77 IP in 2006) .They'll miss him on the field also.

RIP

UKFlounder
04-29-2007, 01:55 PM
Real life interjects itself onto the sports world again.

Just terrible news to read.

RIP Josh.

fadetoblack2880
04-29-2007, 02:02 PM
Wasn't he acquired for Lidle?

Ron Madden
04-29-2007, 02:04 PM
Wasn't he acquired for Lidle?

No it was for Jones.

oneupper
04-29-2007, 02:05 PM
Wasn't he acquired for Lidle?

Ramirez we got for Lidle. Hancock came for Todd Jones, IIRC.

ghettochild
04-29-2007, 02:13 PM
Three days before his death, the Cardinals got a scare that some teammates said reminded them of Kile's death -- Hancock overslept and showed up late for a day game in St. Louis. Hancock told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he thought the starting time was later and didn't get up until the "20th call" from anxious teammates.

freaky...

jimbo
04-29-2007, 02:13 PM
What a terrible tragedy. Hearing something like this always puts things into perspective. My prayers and thoughts go out to his family, friends, and the Cardinals organization.

RIP Josh

FlightRick
04-29-2007, 02:26 PM
How long before RedsZone decides the Cards' pitching is looking dangerously thin, and jokes: "I wonder if, in lieu of flowers, the Reds may send Eric Milton"?

Whoops, looks like the answer to that is 8 seconds ago. Admit it: you're all nicer people than I am, so you weren't thinking it. Yet. But you were going to. Oh yes, you were going to.

crazybob60
04-29-2007, 02:56 PM
Three days before his death, the Cardinals got a scare that some teammates said reminded them of Kile's death -- Hancock overslept and showed up late for a day game in St. Louis. Hancock told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he thought the starting time was later and didn't get up until the "20th call" from anxious teammates.


freaky...

that is freaky and scary that that happened....this is just all too sad.... :(

sonny
04-29-2007, 03:09 PM
Very sad day for baseball.

GoGoWhiteSox
04-29-2007, 03:21 PM
My condolences go out to the Hancock family.:(

ghettochild
04-29-2007, 04:15 PM
Hancock was killed early Sunday when his vehicle apparently struck a truck that was assisting a disabled vehicle, team spokesman Brian Bartow said. The Cardinals and police are expected to make a statement later in the day at Busch Stadium.

sad.

NatiRedGals
04-29-2007, 04:28 PM
Well makes ya think about using the word kill! I thought maybe he gave up like 5 homeruns i would call that being killed but not so much

Reds Fanatic
04-29-2007, 05:20 PM
The Cardinals press conference about Josh is on ESPNews right now. His funeral will be Thursday in Tupelo, Miss.

Danny Serafini
04-29-2007, 05:22 PM
http://cmsimg.enquirer.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=AB&Date=20070429&Category=SPT04&ArtNo=304290005&Ref=AR&Profile=1071&MaxW=315&border=1

Sorry, IMG tags aren't working for some reason.

Javy Pornstache
04-29-2007, 05:29 PM
Horrible news, I always liked Josh. R.I.P.

jmac
04-29-2007, 06:03 PM
Thoughts and prayers with the Hancock family.

Grounds_Crew
04-29-2007, 07:04 PM
Very sad news. I found out about this while at the Reds vs Pirates game today. I moment of silence was observed in his honor.


I was around him a lot while on the grounds crew. He seemed like a nice person who liked to have fun and joke. Sad news...just horrible. I hate hearing about stuff like this.

Rest in Peace Josh.

VI_RedsFan
04-29-2007, 07:27 PM
:cry:

That is so sad. RIP Josh Hancock. I send my prayers and condolences to his family and friends.

TeamBoone
04-29-2007, 07:36 PM
04/29/2007 3:17 PM ET


Reds remember former teammate
Cincinnati players spent time with Hancock last week
By Chris Adamski / Special to MLB.com

PITTSBURGH -- With the tragic news Sunday that Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock was killed in an automobile crash, Reds players reacted to the death of their former teammate.
Hancock, 29, played for the Reds from 2004-05.

"It's one of those reality checks that you never know when your time is," pitcher Matt Belisle said. "I'm just kind of stunned. Whenever you hear something like that, especially first thing in the morning, it kind of stuns you for a little bit."

Hancock was 6-1 in 23 games with the Reds. Although only 10 players remain on the team from 2005, Hancock was remembered fondly.

"It was two years ago that he was in our clubhouse, but it doesn't seem like it," said Belisle, who spent a lot of time in the bullpen with Hancock. "It's just kind of a disgust, kind of a little turn in your gut."

Before arriving in Pittsburgh on Friday, the Reds played three games in St. Louis. Some Cincinnati players met up with Hancock. Belisle said closer David Weathers was in contact with Hancock since the team left St. Louis.

"Very shocking," another former bullpen mate, Todd Coffey, said. "It's very hard to put into words. We just saw him, you know? It's tragic."

While Belisle said he had heard of Hancock's passing early Sunday morning, official word was not released to the public until after 11 a.m. ET. As ESPN interrupted its NFL Draft coverage with a report on Hancock's death, the Reds clubhouse went silent. Players that had just gotten ready to take the field for warmups stopped what they were doing and listened to the clubhouse televisions.

"We had just seen him," Belisle said, shaking his head. "A bad day."

On July 30, 2004, Hancock was acquired along with shortstop Andy Machado from the Philadelphia Phillies in a trade for veteran reliever Todd Jones and Minor Leaguer Brad Correll.

The trade came after a Cincinnati game against Houston was suspended at 10:42 p.m. ET. Hancock made it to Cincinnati the next day in time to pitch in the 11:30 a.m. ET completion of the game. In that 3-2 victory, he threw a scoreless 13th inning for his first Major League win. Hancock did not even get a chance to meet then-Reds manager Dave Miley for the first time until he returned to the dugout following that inning.
Hancock went 5-1 with 4.45 ERA down the stretch in 2004 for the Reds. In 2005, he was hindered by injury and appeared in only 11 games, all after Sept. 1.

Despite being bothered by a strained right groin during 2005 Spring Training, Hancock posted an 0.93 ERA in four Grapefruit League appearances before beginning the season on the disabled list. He had two separate rehabilitation stints with Triple-A Louisville, re-aggravating the injury once and sustaining a right elbow injury during another.

On Sept. 2, Hancock made his Reds season debut. He went 1-0 with a 1.93 ERA. The Reds released Hancock on January 12, 2006.

Born in Cleveland, Miss., Hancock was drafted by the Milwaukee Brewers in 1996 but did not sign, choosing to attend Auburn University. He was drafted again in 1998, this time in the fifth round by Boston. He signed and made his Major League debut with the Red Sox four years later.

After the 2002 season, Hancock was traded to the Phillies for Jeremy Giambi. For his career, Hancock was 9-7 with a 4.20 ERA in 102 games (12 starts). He won a World Series ring with the Cardinals last season.
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070429&content_id=1936865&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

CaiGuy
04-29-2007, 10:13 PM
This puts things into perspective, because for some reason you never think of an active player dying (until it actually happening). But they are guys like the rest of us, and things happen to them too.

TexasRed
04-30-2007, 12:33 AM
I guess people die in car accidents all the time..... This hits hard though. I always liked Josh Hancock and felt like he got a bad deal from the Reds when they released him. My prayers to his family and friends..... RIP

AmarilloRed
04-30-2007, 02:23 AM
Lets all say a Redzone prayer for him and his family.:cry:

savafan
04-30-2007, 05:40 AM
Didn't work...will try as an attachment.

savafan
04-30-2007, 05:45 AM
Here it is.

peterose00
04-30-2007, 02:21 PM
Newbie here.

Does anyone have any information as to whether this was alcohol related in any way?

savafan
04-30-2007, 02:23 PM
Newbie here.

Does anyone have any information as to whether this was alcohol related in any way?

Police said there was no alcohol found at the scene or in the car. I don't believe they have released a toxicology report on Hancock yet.

IowaRed
04-30-2007, 03:24 PM
Newbie here.

Does anyone have any information as to whether this was alcohol related in any way?

autopsy due today, here is a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article with a little more info. on Hancock's whereabouts prior to the accident. It includes a quote from the manager of Mike Shannon's restaurant where Hancock had dinner

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/DA7217E8EB66DD11862572CD00151871?OpenDocument



Sports > Cardinals > Story
Cardinal Nation mourns; autopsy set for today
By Joe Strauss and Bill Bryan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
04/30/2007

Cardinal relief pitcher Josh Hancock contemplates his performance after being taken out of game four of the National League Championship Series at Busch Stadium last October.
(Chris Lee/P-D)

The Cardinals family finds itself facing a second profound loss in five years following Sunday's early-morning traffic accident that took the life of righthanded relief pitcher Josh Hancock.

"Obviously, this is very difficult for all of us, especially for those of us who were here … when we lost Darryl Kile," related general manager Walt Jocketty, who several times steadied his voice during a brief statement. Kile died in his sleep in a Chicago hotel room June 22, 2002.

Hancock died instantly Sunday when his sports utility vehicle plowed into a flat-bed tow truck that was parked in the left lane of Highway 40 near the Forest Park/Grand exit.

Investigators were tracing Hancock's steps for the 12 hours before the accident, St. Louis Police Chief Joe Mokwa said at a Sunday afternoon news conference at Busch Stadium. Mokwa said he would not divulge any findings until the investigation is complete, but said no alcohol containers were found in Hancock's vehicle, which had been rented from a local agency. An autopsy is scheduled for today.
Advertisement

The tow truck had responded to an earlier accident involving a Geo Prism, which came to rest partly on the highway shoulder and partly in the lane after striking the median.

Police were dispatched to the scene when Hancock's vehicle collided with the truck, Mokwa said.

Although the accident occurred not far from the Fox Theatre, Hancock was not among a number of teammates who attended the Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center benefit Saturday night at the theater.

Hancock instead dined with a group of friends at Mike Shannon's Steaks and Seafood after Saturday's game and told the manager that he was headed to the Westin Hotel three blocks away.

"I personally called the police chief and told him everything I know about last night," said Pat Shannon, manager at the restaurant operated by her father, Cardinals broadcaster Mike Shannon.

Hancock, Pat Shannon said, declined an offer for a cab. Shannon declined to say if Hancock consumed alcohol at the restaurant, instead referring the question to police

At about 12:35 a.m., Hancock was driving west approaching the Compton Avenue overpass when his 2007 Ford Explorer struck the right rear of the 26,000-pound tow truck.

No evidence suggested Hancock attempted to brake before striking the truck at such an angle to shear the driver's side.

"(Hancock) probably didn't see the tow truck until the last split-second," Mokwa said. "There's an indication that he swerved (to the right) at the last split-second."

The truck's operator, Jacob Hargrove, sat in the vehicle's cab at the time of the crash but was not injured. The collision sent the truck into the parked Geo Prism, spinning it on the highway.

Hargrove, employed by Eddie's Tow Truck Service of Wellston, told police his emergency lights — a rotating yellow light and flashing red lights — were on at the time. Hargrove said he saw the Explorer approaching in his rear view mirror and honked his horn to no avail.

Reached by phone Sunday afternoon, Hargrove declined comment except to say, "I offer my full condolences for the family. It's a sad tragedy."

Police said they don't know where Hancock had been before the accident or where he was headed. The Cardinals' afternoon game with the Cubs had been over for almost seven hours. Hancock lived in a Brentwood condominium near the Galleria.

Mokwa believed Hancock was driving at or near the speed limit when the accident occurred. Police could not identify Hancock since no drivers license was found at the scene. Hancock experienced massive trauma, said Cardinals director of security Joe Walsh, called to provide positive identification.

"If I hadn't known him I would have had a very tough time" identifying him, Walsh said.

Walsh contacted team president Mark Lamping and general manager Walt Jocketty around 4 a.m. Manager Tony La Russa phoned Hancock's father, Dean, with news of his son's death.

"You sit there for 15 minutes thinking about it. It doesn't help," La Russa said.

The Cardinals will wear a patch bearing Hancock's No. 32 on the left sleeve of their uniform for the rest of this season. The club lowered flags at Busch Stadium to half-staff and made space for an impromptu shrine established near the park's third-base gate.

"The pain our organization feels today is unspeakable," Cardinals chairman Bill DeWitt said. "Josh was a great competitor with a strong will to win. His fellow Cardinals will tell you that Josh was the consummate teammate with a terrific spirit that served him well on the mound and in the clubhouse."

Hancock, 29, was single and an alumnus of Auburn University. He was one of the few from last season's world championship club to spend this winter in St. Louis.

The Cardinals acquired Hancock in February 2006 shortly after the Cincinnati Reds released him. He broke camp with the club and eventually made 62 appearances covering 77 innings. Hancock pitched three innings in Saturday's 8-1 loss to the Cubs, a role typical for him. La Russa often called on Hancock to "eat" innings if a starting pitcher made an abbreviated start. By doing so, the righthander allowed the rest of the bullpen to remain available for the next day's game.

Hancock's June 9 win over the Milwaukee Brewers came in the game that put the Cardinals ahead to stay en route to the NL Central title.

A down-to-earth prankster who enjoyed NASCAR, playing cards and roasting his fellow relievers, Hancock embraced the Cardinals' clubhouse culture after leaving the Reds as an outcast.

"Here's a guy who really enjoyed and was a very strong part of the family here at the ballpark and away from the ballpark. That's a big miss and a big hole that's going to be there," La Russa said.

Players gathered at Busch Stadium on Sunday afternoon. There, they listened to a scripture reading and exchanged remembrances of Hancock, much as the club did five years before in a Chicago meeting room.

La Russa later called the 2002 season the greatest challenge of his career. That club emerged from its grief to win 97 games and a division title.

"Maybe in some way this organization is better prepared to deal with this because we've experienced it before," La Russa said. "But it's a test, a brutal test."

The club made grief counselors available Sunday. Several team members worked out before returning home to pack for a charter flight to Milwaukee. Pitcher Braden Looper offered a statement, but no players were made available for questions.

"This has obviously been a very difficult time for me and the Cardinals family," said Looper. "Josh was a great teammate and a great friend to everybody. He was a key part of our success last year and at the beginning of this year. We just have to get through this as a team and keep Josh's memory in our prayers and thoughts."

Hancock's loss especially tore at the Cardinals' close-knit bullpen. Though the club closed its clubhouse Sunday, a club official described it as "a tough scene."

"Let me tell you, you can't say anything that's going to make a big difference. At best it's going to make a little difference," La Russa said.

The Cubs readily agreed to Sunday's postponement. Playing "wouldn't be a consideration," according to Cubs manager Lou Piniella.

Piniella watched his friend La Russa's televised appearance from the visitors' clubhouse. "I think he described it very well. It's brutal," Piniella said. "I hope I never get put in his situation."

Ex-Cardinals teammate and current Cubs starting pitcher Jason Marquis was the last to see Hancock at Busch Stadium on Saturday. The two exchanged greetings while Hancock climbed into his truck as Marquis left the stadium.

"I played with him and am only a couple months removed from it," Marquis recalled. "If it's a guy maybe on another team, you don't feel it as much. But it hits home a little bit. This is your family away from your family. It's like losing one of your own. It's been tough. But everybody's strong enough. We'll get through it."

Funeral arrangements were pending Sunday afternoon. The service will be in Tupelo, Miss., on Thursday. DeWitt has arranged for a charter to take the team to Mississippi after the finale of the team's three-game series in Milwaukee.

Hancock's survivors include his parents, a sister and a brother.

Jake Wagman of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

TeamDunn
04-30-2007, 03:28 PM
If they offered a cab when he had his own vehicle with him I would guess alcohol will be a factor.

That just sucks. :(

BRM
04-30-2007, 03:34 PM
If they offered a cab when he had his own vehicle with him I would guess alcohol will be a factor.

That just sucks. :(

You would think alcohol would be involved if the restaurant owner offered to get him a cab. I hope not though.

Team Clark
04-30-2007, 07:00 PM
You would think alcohol would be involved if the restaurant owner offered to get him a cab. I hope not though.

Tough to speculate. He may have had two drinks and someone offered a cab as a courtesy. Not sure we will ever "know". It's just sad that he's gone. Any details are really irrelevant at this point. The only positive, if you could stretch it that far, is if he were drunk...it would serve as a reminder why you should never drink and drive. I hope that he was not. RIP Josh.

savafan
05-01-2007, 02:18 AM
http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2007/04/30/ap-state-il/d8orbrq00.txt


ST. LOUIS - Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock was involved in a minor auto accident early Thursday, only three days before his fatal wreck.

Police in Sauget, Ill., a small town just across the river from St. Louis, said Hancock was at a stop sign at about 5:30 a.m. when a tractor-trailer clipped the front of his sport utility vehicle. No charges were filed in the accident.

44Magnum
05-01-2007, 12:51 PM
Very sad news indeed. I feel for his family and friends.
However, reports indicate that alcohol was probably involved. Hopefully others will learn from this tragic accident.

peterose00
05-02-2007, 01:46 AM
There will be some very ugly news coming out of this situation. It doesn't change the magnitude of this tragedy or lessen the grief anyone should feel. But it also should not be swept under the carpet and not talked about.

Alcohol abuse can be as big of a problem as steroids or any other drug.

Let's consider some facts:

LaRussa is found asleep at the wheel of his SUV in Jupiter Florida during spring training. His is legally drunk. The car has idled out into an intersection.

Josh Hancock has an incident last Thursday where is is "out" at 5:30 AM on a day when the club has a game that starts at 12:30 AM. He is on the "Illinois" side of the Mississippi River in an area that literally has nothing but warehouses, strip clubs and liquor stores. The road he is turning from is called "Yellow Brick Road" because the Oz strip club is located right there. Not much mention is made of any of this. And in fact, reporters go to great lengths to minimize the near fatal accident that he was involved in on this day. One officer is quoted as saying "if he was one inch farther out in the intersection when he was hit, he would be dead".

After a game Hancock is at Shannon's for 3 hours. He is drunk. The bartender offers to get him a cab and he states that he is going to get a room across the street at the Westin. Instead he drives home drunk and dies.

I have seen enough evidence to conclude that there is a problem in St Louis with alcohol abuse. After all the rawness of everyone's emotions are lessened by time, I wonder what will be done about the real issue here.

TeamDunn
05-02-2007, 07:37 AM
Excellent post, peterose00 :thumbup:

hebroncougar
05-02-2007, 09:13 AM
There will be some very ugly news coming out of this situation. It doesn't change the magnitude of this tragedy or lessen the grief anyone should feel. But it also should not be swept under the carpet and not talked about.

Alcohol abuse can be as big of a problem as steroids or any other drug.

Let's consider some facts:

LaRussa is found asleep at the wheel of his SUV in Jupiter Florida during spring training. His is legally drunk. The car has idled out into an intersection.

Josh Hancock has an incident last Thursday where is is "out" at 5:30 AM on a day when the club has a game that starts at 12:30 AM. He is on the "Illinois" side of the Mississippi River in an area that literally has nothing but warehouses, strip clubs and liquor stores. The road he is turning from is called "Yellow Brick Road" because the Oz strip club is located right there. Not much mention is made of any of this. And in fact, reporters go to great lengths to minimize the near fatal accident that he was involved in on this day. One officer is quoted as saying "if he was one inch farther out in the intersection when he was hit, he would be dead".

After a game Hancock is at Shannon's for 3 hours. He is drunk. The bartender offers to get him a cab and he states that he is going to get a room across the street at the Westin. Instead he drives home drunk and dies.

I have seen enough evidence to conclude that there is a problem in St Louis with alcohol abuse. After all the rawness of everyone's emotions are lessened by time, I wonder what will be done about the real issue here.


That would probably be said for a lot of places of employment, 2 out of about 35 people (if you are counting coaches) having drinks after a day of work, and we are still assuming on Hancock, as nothing has really come out yet. It's probably even more common in Major League Clubhouse's because you get done working so late, and don't have to be at work until 3-4 o'clock the next day. To say "I've seen enough proof to say there's a problem in St. Louis" is quite a stretch IMO. I'm certainly not excusing the fact that Larussa got a DUI, but let's not blow things out of proportion either.

bucksfan2
05-02-2007, 09:24 AM
As soon as I heard about Hancock dying in a one car accident I was wondering if alcohol was realted. While alcohol does not lessen the loss it shows that it may have been preventable. When watching LaRussa talking about the incidend I couldn't help but to think how hyprocritical he was knowing that he was involved in a DUI just a few months ago. Maybe this sounds cold but St. Louis organization basically turned a blind eye to LaRussa and allowed a culture of drinking and driving without punishment. Its a shame that it probably took a death to have Cardnals (or the rest of baseball) realize that this sort of behavior isn't ok.

hebroncougar
05-02-2007, 09:29 AM
As soon as I heard about Hancock dying in a one car accident I was wondering if alcohol was realted. While alcohol does not lessen the loss it shows that it may have been preventable. When watching LaRussa talking about the incidend I couldn't help but to think how hyprocritical he was knowing that he was involved in a DUI just a few months ago. Maybe this sounds cold but St. Louis organization basically turned a blind eye to LaRussa and allowed a culture of drinking and driving without punishment. Its a shame that it probably took a death to have Cardnals (or the rest of baseball) realize that this sort of behavior isn't ok.

The same could be said of Freel in the past as well. Did the Reds punish him??? I honestly don't remember. It's almost as though baseball excused the alcohol, as long as it's not drugs or steroids.

Rotater Cuff
05-02-2007, 09:50 AM
The same could be said of Freel in the past as well. Did the Reds punish him??? I honestly don't remember. It's almost as though baseball excused the alcohol, as long as it's not drugs or steroids.

I don't think its real fair to bring in Freel in this. He's redeemed himself to a large degree, and he's never put anyone else in harm's way because of his actions since then (to the best of our knowledge).

After reading Daugherty's column this morning, it sounds like Hancock was in some kind of death spiral for a week or so, and the culture of the Cardinals has protected him from getting help. Remember, his manager was found sheiss faced at a red light idling his SUV just 2 months ago by the police. This wasn't the kind of culture that was going to help someone like Hancock.

hebroncougar
05-02-2007, 10:24 AM
I don't think its real fair to bring in Freel in this. He's redeemed himself to a large degree, and he's never put anyone else in harm's way because of his actions since then (to the best of our knowledge).

After reading Daugherty's column this morning, it sounds like Hancock was in some kind of death spiral for a week or so, and the culture of the Cardinals has protected him from getting help. Remember, his manager was found sheiss faced at a red light idling his SUV just 2 months ago by the police. This wasn't the kind of culture that was going to help someone like Hancock.

He got a DUI, that qualifies as putting someone in harms way in my book. I'm not saying the Reds are as bad, etc., etc., I'm just saying, it's a fairly common thing across the board in sports..........alcohol is involved. How many fans could get DUI's on the way home from a game, is alcohol served in clubhouses after games? (I really don't know), I know champagne is after winning a pennant, and I know it's got to be commonplace for players to have beers at restaurants after games. I just think it's unfair to point a damning finger at the Cardinals, when it goes on everywhere.

Chip R
05-02-2007, 11:16 AM
After reading Daugherty's column this morning, it sounds like Hancock was in some kind of death spiral for a week or so, and the culture of the Cardinals has protected him from getting help. Remember, his manager was found sheiss faced at a red light idling his SUV just 2 months ago by the police. This wasn't the kind of culture that was going to help someone like Hancock.


I don't know if Hancock was in some sort of "death spiral". I don't know if he was even an alcoholic. It does appear that he had a problem with alcohol. Although those cops in Illinois said he didn't appear impaired when he got into that first accident, did they give him a breathalizer? I don't think so since they were too busy trying on his World Series ring. Maybe he was stone cold sober at the time or maybe he had a few beers. Just having a few beers wouldn't necessarily make you "seem impaired" but they could be enough to slow down your reflexes. Those cops are going to have to wonder if Hancock was impaired and if they had given him a breathalizer he may still be alive today.

It's no secret athletes and important people get treated differently than you or I would. While I think LaRussa's DUI didn't set a good example for anyone, I doubt it had an impact one way or another on Josh Hancock. Anyone who is a Bengals fan or who lives in the area knows that one team member getting a DUI isn't going to be a deterrant to another. These guys are like teenagers with a lot of money. They think they are going to live forever and someone getting a DUI - even if it's a friend - isn't going to stop them. We shouldn't throw stones at the Cardinals organization either since we live in the glass house of either being a Bengals fan and/or a Reds (Ryan Freel) fan.

Rotater Cuff
05-02-2007, 12:23 PM
The more we find out, the more it looks like Krivsky and Narron may have been real smart about handling Hancock. Marijuana was also found in his SUV.
By the way, wasn't Freel arrested in his car, rather than driving?

See attached link:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/01A7AC9CE98D888F862572CF00192B7F?OpenDocument

Chip R
05-02-2007, 12:35 PM
The more we find out, the more it looks like Krivsky and Narron may have been real smart about handling Hancock. Marijuana was also found in his SUV.


I wondered if there were more than met the eye when Hancock was released for being overweight. Just speculating but perhaps Josh showed up not in the best of shape i.e. hung over a few times too many. A guy like Freel gets a second chance while a guy like Josh is expendable. Perhaps being overweight was a cover story both parties agreed to. It was a bit embarrassing to Josh but it didn't make him look like a lush to anyone else who wanted to pick him up.

The pot thing doesn't really bother me that much. If you were going to form a team with guys who don't or haven't used pot, you'd have problems getting a team together. Perhaps the pot was more of a distraction to Josh than it was an impediment. Maybe he dropped his pipe or a joint when he was driving and that distracted him just enough so he wasn't able to miss the truck.

hebroncougar
05-02-2007, 12:50 PM
The more we find out, the more it looks like Krivsky and Narron may have been real smart about handling Hancock. Marijuana was also found in his SUV.
By the way, wasn't Freel arrested in his car, rather than driving?

See attached link:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/01A7AC9CE98D888F862572CF00192B7F?OpenDocument


And a bad situation gets worse. Hate to hear it. Again, I don't think this is just a STL. thing though. :(

Boston Red
05-02-2007, 01:04 PM
Car services and cabs are highly underrated. Use them.

Redsland
05-02-2007, 01:08 PM
…is alcohol served in clubhouses after games? (I really don't know)…
It's not "served" per se, but beer is usually available for those who want it. Remember, Coutlangus got doused with beers after his first "win." (Essentially because that's what was available. There would have been some champagne somewhere, in the unlikely event of a perfect game, or something, but that would not have been busted out for something like this.)


Although those cops in Illinois said he didn't appear impaired when he got into that first accident, did they give him a breathalizer?
No, according to published reports.

westofyou
05-02-2007, 01:14 PM
Originally Posted by hebroncougar View Post
…is alcohol served in clubhouses after games? (I really don't know)…
The late 50's Reds were such boozers that the beer in the clubhouse rule was stricken for awhile, IIRC the re instituted it in 1961 as noted by Bronson in his book.

I think it really is something that varies based who is the manager and GM.

Chip R
05-02-2007, 01:22 PM
Car services and cabs are highly underrated. Use them.


Indeed. But when you've been drinking you don't always make the best decisions. Plus athletes tend to believe that since they are athletes and in better physical shape than most of the people out there that they can drive themselves even if they have been drinking. Maybe it's kind of a macho thing. Like how guys don't ever ask for directions when they are lost. Perhaps they feel that if they took a cab, it would appear that they can't handle their liquor and their peers will give them a hard time because of that.

savafan
05-02-2007, 01:34 PM
The more we find out, the more it looks like Krivsky and Narron may have been real smart about handling Hancock. Marijuana was also found in his SUV.
By the way, wasn't Freel arrested in his car, rather than driving?

See attached link:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/01A7AC9CE98D888F862572CF00192B7F?OpenDocument

Don't crucify me if I'm wrong, but wasn't marijuana also found in Daryl Kile's hotel room?

westofyou
05-02-2007, 01:36 PM
Don't crucify me if I'm wrong, but wasn't marijuana also found in Daryl Kile's hotel room?

I think so, I've yet to hear of a pot induced death, so I'll keep my eye on the booze end of this story, I think it is the much bigger bear in the room.

Sea Ray
05-02-2007, 04:45 PM
The more we find out, the more it looks like Krivsky and Narron may have been real smart about handling Hancock. Marijuana was also found in his SUV.



The Reds have taken quite a beating around here and other places for letting this guy go and then seeing him help a WS Champion while the Reds bullpen struggled.

Well it looks like there was more to this than 17 lbs. I can now see why WK cut him.

Redsland
05-02-2007, 04:48 PM
He was cut on the first day of camp. Hardly enough time to observe a pattern of behavior.

Sea Ray
05-02-2007, 04:53 PM
I think so, I've yet to hear of a pot induced death, so I'll keep my eye on the booze end of this story, I think it is the much bigger bear in the room.


You can't be serious. There are many toxic chemicals in Pot. If cigarettes kill 400,000 a year don't you think Pot might kill a few as well?


And marijuana affects people of all ages: Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.

Source:


http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/03so.htm

Perhaps that did have something to do with Darryl Kile's heart stopping...

dabvu2498
05-02-2007, 04:54 PM
I think so, I've yet to hear of a pot induced death, so I'll keep my eye on the booze end of this story, I think it is the much bigger bear in the room.

Yesterday: http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1177987208124110.xml&coll=1

Sea Ray
05-02-2007, 04:55 PM
He was cut on the first day of camp. Hardly enough time to observe a pattern of behavior.


The pattern of behavior may have been noticed the year before. The weight gain was just the final straw. My point is the weight gain was probably not the sole reason

Ltlabner
05-02-2007, 04:58 PM
The Reds have taken quite a beating around here and other places for letting this guy go and then seeing him help a WS Champion while the Reds bullpen struggled.

Well it looks like there was more to this than 17 lbs. I can now see why WK cut him.

If all this information is true it certinally highlights how little we as fans really know about the decisions being made about player moves. We can work with the information that is given to us via the team, or the press, but in reality, we really don't have much of a clue as to the "rest of the story".

That doesn't mean we should stop commenting on player moves, but it is a prime example that perhaps we should stop pretending like we have all of the information available for our "analysis".

TeamBoone
05-02-2007, 05:06 PM
The pattern of behavior may have been noticed the year before. The weight gain was just the final straw. My point is the weight gain was probably not the sole reason

But we don't know this; it's pure speculation.

Sea Ray
05-02-2007, 05:08 PM
But we don't know this; it's pure speculation.

Absolutely correct. Purely speculation on my part

Chip R
05-02-2007, 05:09 PM
The pattern of behavior may have been noticed the year before. The weight gain was just the final straw. My point is the weight gain was probably not the sole reason


That may be true. It's really just speculation at this point. Being released after the 1st day of ST supports Redsland's belief that a pattern of behavior hadn't been established. Wayne certainly wasn't around the year before to notice it. Narron was, though and perhaps he noticed a few behavioral problems. Someone said his apartment was right above O'Malleys and it's not a stretch to believe that he was a frequent customer there. I wish Josh had an apartment above a bar in StL. Perhaps he wouldn't have had to drive when he was going out.

I know I said before that one's peers usually don't let a teammate's DUI affect their behavior. However, when a teammate dies and if the speculation is true, they may take that to heart. I saw he was going to meet some teammates at a bar when he left the restaurant. There but for the grace of God goeth them.

Redsland
05-02-2007, 05:23 PM
The pattern of behavior may have been noticed the year before.
It may. But there was no opportunity for anyone to see if old patterns were repeating themselves in ST '06. If he'd been cut a week or two into ST, then maybe.

FOLLOW UP:

Here's what Marc posted on his blog the morning Hancock was cut. The time stamp on his blog says it went up at 9:10 a.m.

SARASOTA -- On the first day of spring training workouts, the Reds released Josh Hancock. The pitcher came to camp 17 pounds over his requested reporting weight, and with so many pitchers already contending for valuable mound time, Jerry Narron decided to get rid of the 27-year-old right-hander.

"At the end of the year last year, the last day in St. Louis when I talked to these players, I told these guys to give themselves a chance to be successful," said Narron. "I said the only way you can do that is being committed, by working out this winter and coming to spring training in shape, taking seriously what you’re doing.

"I have no clue what Josh Hancock was doing. As far as I know, he might have been running a marathon all winter long. He may have been throwing off the mound. But he was 17 pounds over his requested reporting weight. Can he be a successful major league pitcher 17 pounds more than he’s asked to be? Maybe. But we looked at last year, and he was on the disabled list for 133 games, and just did not see the commitment that we wanted to see this winter. So we let him go the first day of spring training.

That stay on the DL probably factors into the equation somewhere.

hebroncougar
05-02-2007, 07:43 PM
If all this information is true it certinally highlights how little we as fans really know about the decisions being made about player moves. We can work with the information that is given to us via the team, or the press, but in reality, we really don't have much of a clue as to the "rest of the story".

That doesn't mean we should stop commenting on player moves, but it is a prime example that perhaps we should stop pretending like we have all of the information available for our "analysis".

Which is exactly why it's impossible to say if anything mentioned on the board as to how or what Josh Hancock supposedly did or didn't do had anything to do with him being released here. It's absolutely impossible for anyone on here to connect the fact that he had a little marijuana in an SUV in April of 2007 to why he was released here. There's a whole lot of reaching going on about a guy who lost his life this past weekend.

peterose00
05-03-2007, 02:10 AM
I said before that nothing that we talk about here should detract from the grief we or anyne else should feel for the death of Hancock.

Having said that, LaRussa's DUI in spring traing, the wierd Thursday "I was driving around because I couldn't sleep at 5:30 AM" incident, the locale where all that took place (on Yellow Brick Road Lane" where the Oz strip club is located) and then the drunk driving accident that killed him -- should point to a problem.

I read where someone said that this involves just two people out of 35 or so. But then Jocketty was quoted in the article as saying that he is aware that many of his players are drinking and partying alot. I suspect that means that he knows that many of his players are doing this -- and it cannot be condoned especially in light of what has happened).

What is the alternative -- do nothing and wait for someone else to die?

There is a culture on alcohol abuse that should be dealt with in St Louis.

Not much will be said until after his wake in Mississippi -- but this needs to be dealt with sternly within the Cardinal organization.

peterose00
05-03-2007, 02:28 AM
Excellent post, peterose00 :thumbup:

Thanks

Rotater Cuff
05-03-2007, 09:08 AM
He was cut on the first day of camp. Hardly enough time to observe a pattern of behavior.
What with the time on the disabled list, Narron trying to set a tone, and all the stuff that we will never know, sometimes you just realize that the Reds make decisions just like we do, with the best information they have at the time.
With all that said, and with the total benefit of hindsight, the Reds absolutely made the best decision on Hancock.
But it's still a sad story, just like Josh Hamilton was a sad story. We can't cast too many stones, there are potential Josh Hancocks everywhere in baseball.

Redsland
05-03-2007, 11:50 AM
But it's still a sad story, just like Josh Hamilton was a sad story. We can't cast too many stones, there are potential Josh Hancocks everywhere in baseball.
Absolutely.

westofyou
05-03-2007, 11:54 AM
Absolutely.

And fact is there always has been, 130 years ago

http://www.deadballart.com/redszone/drug.gif

Chip R
05-03-2007, 12:13 PM
I said before that nothing that we talk about here should detract from the grief we or anyne else should feel for the death of Hancock.

Having said that, LaRussa's DUI in spring traing, the wierd Thursday "I was driving around because I couldn't sleep at 5:30 AM" incident, the locale where all that took place (on Yellow Brick Road Lane" where the Oz strip club is located) and then the drunk driving accident that killed him -- should point to a problem.

I read where someone said that this involves just two people out of 35 or so. But then Jocketty was quoted in the article as saying that he is aware that many of his players are drinking and partying alot. I suspect that means that he knows that many of his players are doing this -- and it cannot be condoned especially in light of what has happened).

What is the alternative -- do nothing and wait for someone else to die?

There is a culture on alcohol abuse that should be dealt with in St Louis.



If you think that the Cards are the only organization that has players go out and drink and party a lot, you have another thing coming.

Always Red
05-03-2007, 12:23 PM
We can't cast too many stones, there are potential Josh Hancocks everywhere in baseball.

excellent point, and to take it to the logical conclusion, there are potential Josh Hancocks everywhere in life, not just in baseball or sports, including some who are reading this post right now, sadly enough.

bucksfan2
05-03-2007, 12:40 PM
The problem I see with this situation is you have your manager who passes out in the middle of an intersection 2 hours after his last drink and he gets no punishment. The only thing a guy like LaRussa really has to worry about in this stage of his life is his pride and ego. St. Louis basically swept this entire situation under the rug and acted like nothing happened. There is my first problem with the organization. DUI's to athletes are nothing. Basically a slap on the wrist, maybe a game or two suspension but they have no reason to worry about their job, like most of us do, they dont have to worry about excessive fines, because its just a drop in the bucket for them. I am sure that quite a few people knew about Hancock's problem and just brushed it aside. Heck who knows how many times their manager got behind the wheel when he was too drunk to be driving.

Is this a problem across all of baseball? Sure, it may be. But when you have your manager get arrested and a player die because of alcohol related decisions its time for you to turn and look at yourself and see if you are allowing these activities to happen.

Chip R
05-03-2007, 12:45 PM
Is this a problem across all of baseball? Sure, it may be. But when you have your manager get arrested and a player die because of alcohol related decisions its time for you to turn and look at yourself and see if you are allowing these activities to happen.


So you believe if LaRussa had been fired or suspended, Josh Hancock would still be alive now?

savafan
05-03-2007, 01:13 PM
So you believe if LaRussa had been fired or suspended, Josh Hancock would still be alive now?

I think that's a far reaching stretch...

Chip R
05-03-2007, 01:17 PM
I think that's a far reaching stretch...


I agree.

steig
05-03-2007, 01:17 PM
If Josh Hancock was drunk at the time of accident then I do not consider this to be a sad story. This story could have been so much worse. What if the tow truck was not there yet and he crashed into the accident scene and injured or killed another person. I feel bad for his family, but in the end IF he was indeed drunk then it's better that he killed himself than somebody else.

I also sometimes wonder if this story is being pushed further because it was Cardinals player. I often think that larussa and the organization push their agenda much further in the media than it deserves. It seems like I've heard more about the Josh Hancock death than when Corey Lidle crash his plane last fall.

Chip R
05-03-2007, 01:24 PM
If Josh Hancock was drunk at the time of accident then I do not consider this to be a sad story. This story could have been so much worse. What if the tow truck was not there yet and he crashed into the accident scene and injured or killed another person. I feel bad for his family, but in the end IF he was indeed drunk then it's better that he killed himself than somebody else.

I don't care if he was going 90 in a school lane when school was letting out with a flask of Jack Daniels in his hand, it's still sad that he died. He wasn't Hitler or Sadaam Hussein. He's still someone's friend, son and brother.


I also sometimes wonder if this story is being pushed further because it was Cardinals player. I often think that larussa and the organization push their agenda much further in the media than it deserves. It seems like I've heard more about the Josh Hancock death than when Corey Lidle crash his plane last fall.


Not quite sure what you're getting at here. You believe that LaRussa and the Cards are keeping this story in the media to further their agenda, whatever that may be? :confused:

peterose00
05-03-2007, 01:31 PM
If you think that the Cards are the only organization that has players go out and drink and party a lot, you have another thing coming.

I think there are party'ers on any and every team -- probably in the major and minor leagues.

But to use that as an explanation for what has happened in the last 60 days within the St Louis Cardinal organization -- is to be naive (at best) and to minimize this scenario (at worse). In either case, the problem still exists and is (in part) why the Hancock thing escalated to the point of being such a tragedy.

Here we have the manager of the club falling asleep at the wheel of his SUV in spring traing, drunk and idling out into an intersection. Then we have a player leaving the road at 5:30 AM from a prominently known strip club (on a day when the club is playing a 12:30 PM start. An accident ensues and a tragedy is avoided by inches. The player is late and lies about the reason. Three days later that player dies in an accident -- with marijuana in his vehicle -- and probably drunk.

There isn't a business organization in the world, or a college, pro or high school team in the land that wouldn't have the upper management of that team or business offering that every business has these kinds of issues.

Undoubtedly there are others -- but let's not have more deaths before we see it as the serious problem that it is. Let's stop minimizing the issue.

I'll say it again -- there is a culture of alcohol abuse that exists in St Louis that should be investigated and dealt with as a result of these ugly incidents still playing out.

peterose00
05-03-2007, 01:47 PM
I don't care if he was going 90 in a school lane when school was letting out with a flask of Jack Daniels in his hand, it's still sad that he died. He wasn't Hitler or Sadaam Hussein. He's still someone's friend, son and brother. :confused:

A clear tragedy indeed -- and alcohol/drug abuse kills people -- even people's sons, their friends and their brothers. It is incredibly sad -- but it is still wrong.

And Josh Hancock is accountable for the wrong that took his life.

The St Louis Cardinal organization -- or any business or organization for that matter that -- can adopt a policy that does curb the rate of these things happening. Establishing a workplace substance abuse program can drastically reduce the cost from decreased productivity and increased health claims to in this case, loss of life.

I can assure you, absenteeism, injuries on the job, mistakes in work, and many other problems are reduced when a program is in place. And there are many approaches to establishing an effective program. But doing nothing or winking and looking the other way is not the answer. Doing that results in the kinds of things we have seen play out for the Cardinals.

There is no absolute "model" substance abuse program that is right for all companies. The program should be tailored to the needs and circumstances of the individual company. There are, however,five standard components of a comprehensive workplace substance abuse program.

A written policy statement
Supervisor training
Employee education and awareness
Employee assistance for providing help
Drug and alcohol testing

The company's written policy does not have to be elaborate to work.

But I am telling you -- when the manager of the team is getting DUI's in spring training and the players are showing up late for work and/or dieing -- there is a problem.

peterose00
05-03-2007, 01:49 PM
I think that's a far reaching stretch...

I think it is a stretch as well. When you are trying to make a point from such a weak position to begin with, stretching like this is required -- for sure.

peterose00
05-03-2007, 01:56 PM
What with the time on the disabled list, Narron trying to set a tone, and all the stuff that we will never know, sometimes you just realize that the Reds make decisions just like we do, with the best information they have at the time.
With all that said, and with the total benefit of hindsight, the Reds absolutely made the best decision on Hancock.
But it's still a sad story, just like Josh Hamilton was a sad story. We can't cast too many stones, there are potential Josh Hancocks everywhere in baseball.

There are potential Josh Hancocks everywhere in baseball.

But I think you touch a real key point.

The Reds and Narron made the right decision. We can see that with 20 - 20 hindsight -- but they made their decision with foresight.

Here you have a guy who came into camp 17 pounds heavier than what he was told to come in at. That is all we know about why Jerry and Wayne made the decision they did on Hancock. But what did they know that we do not know?

Also, if Hancock is found to be drunk and had marijuana in his car -- and had killed someone else, would everyone be seeing this in the same manner. In this case he killed himself, which is tragic enough in it's own right.

But I guarantee you that if he had killed someone else or a family of people, the way this was looked at would be very different. There would be calls for investigation into the substance abuse culture that exists in St Louis -- I guarantee you that would have happened. Maybe it would happen because Bud Selig would want to do damage control -- but it would most assuredly happened.

Now just because Hancock was the only person killed deos not negate the need to see this in a truthful light here. Let's not wait until another Josh Hancock does kill themselves and others before we choose to see the truth.

Chip R
05-03-2007, 02:38 PM
But I guarantee you that if he had killed someone else or a family of people, the way this was looked at would be very different. There would be calls for investigation into the substance abuse culture that exists in St Louis -- I guarantee you that would have happened. Maybe it would happen because Bud Selig would want to do damage control -- but it would most assuredly happened.



Is there a problem there? Perhaps. Is it just the Cardinals? All one has to do is look down the river from GAB to see that it isn't. It'd be incredibly naive to believe the Cardinals are the only organization that might have a problem with this. There could be - and probably are - plenty of players from other organizations that like a cocktail or several after their games. There also could be plenty of incidents where a player is driving after having too much to drink and is stopped by the cops. The cops realize who the player is and they arrange for him to be taken home instead of arrested. Nobody finds out about it because there's no arrest but just because there's no arrest doesn't mean that that player wasn't driving drunk. I'm certainly not enough of a homerkook to say the Cardinals are the only sports organization that may have a problem with their players and alcohol abuse.

peterose00
05-03-2007, 02:48 PM
Is there a problem there? Perhaps. Is it just the Cardinals? All one has to do is look down the river from GAB to see that it isn't. It'd be incredibly naive to believe the Cardinals are the only organization that might have a problem with this. There could be - and probably are - plenty of players from other organizations that like a cocktail or several after their games. There also could be plenty of incidents where a player is driving after having too much to drink and is stopped by the cops. The cops realize who the player is and they arrange for him to be taken home instead of arrested. Nobody finds out about it because there's no arrest but just because there's no arrest doesn't mean that that player wasn't driving drunk. I'm certainly not enough of a homerkook to say the Cardinals are the only sports organization that may have a problem with their players and alcohol abuse.

The problem is that you are driving your whole discussion -- at least the part you are basing your position on -- around something that NO ONE said. NO ONE said that this was a problem that was unique to the St Louis Cardinals. The Cardinals have it -- and need to deal with it. Any organization that has the problem should be dealing with it.

But the Cardinals had their manager arrested in an embarrasing spring training DUI incident and now have followed it up with two ugly incidents with Hancock -- the last taking the man's life.

That is more than a player wanting to go out for a cocktail or two after dinner.

Hancock was out driving around strip clubs at 5:30 AM. That signals a problem in itself if you are any kind of employer. Seriously.

Add the accident on that day, his subsequent lie to his teammates, showing up late for work, the bizarre explanation, the three hour drinking binge at Shannons after the Sunday game, the accidnt and fatality -- and what you have equals far more than a wink your eye and let him go kind of scenario.

To say otherwise is to minimize the problem -- in St Louis, in Cincinnati, in Dayton or Chiperville. It doesn't matter. People are dieing -- the manager is participating and the judge is what has happened.

creek14
05-03-2007, 02:55 PM
there are potential Josh Hancocks everywhere in baseball.
There are potential Josh Hancocks in every workplace across the country. This certainly isn't just a baseball or sports or entertainer problem.

Chip R
05-03-2007, 02:57 PM
There are potential Josh Hancocks in every workplace across the country. This certainly isn't just a baseball or sports or entertainer problem.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070503/en_nm/crime_rhymes_dc_3

peterose00
05-03-2007, 03:31 PM
There are potential Josh Hancocks in every workplace across the country. This certainly isn't just a baseball or sports or entertainer problem.

That doesn't make it right. It doesn't explain or rationalize people dieing because it is tolerated or minimized.

If there is a culture that exists among the workplace where these people are employed, then the employer has some accountability. Fostering an abusive environment is defined by the things that happen, their regularity or frequency. Now St Louis has had their manager arrested for a DUI in spring training and had a player die about a month later.

That certainly qualifies as a problem.

bucksfan2
05-03-2007, 03:55 PM
That doesn't make it right. It doesn't explain or rationalize people dieing because it is tolerated or minimized.

If there is a culture that exists among the workplace where these people are employed, then the employer has some accountability. Fostering an abusive environment is defined by the things that happen, their regularity or frequency. Now St Louis has had their manager arrested for a DUI in spring training and had a player die about a month later.

That certainly qualifies as a problem.

Well said. I hate comparing Baseball to any other buisness. Baseball has the anti trust exemption so it is very difficult to compare to any other workplace. If LaRussa had been suspended or at least punished would it have effected the Hancock situation, who knows, but it does not look good on the organization. As a baseball team I think the cardnals are going to have a tough time this year because there are players that knew what kind of situation Hancock was repeatively putting himself into. They had to atleast have some kind of knowledge about what Hancock did when he was away from the ball park. Did the players just brush it off? Did the manager brush it off because if he said anything he was being hypocritical?

TheWalls
05-03-2007, 04:24 PM
Here's my problem. Josh was a big boy and must be responsible for his actions.

HOWEVER

LaRussa must have seen there was a problem developing (especially after the unexcused late, hungover arrival for a NOON game) and couldn't be a role model or authority.

The broadcaster's restaurant saw he had a problem and didn't intervene (and should be sued)

Dave (soup) Campbell - was having cocktails with him and knew he had a problem and didn't intervene

His Teammates were waiting for him at his THIRD bar of the evening and they didn't have the sense to at least make sure his was in a taxi or limo?

It's a lot like some of the Bengals stupidity. To paraphrase Donkey from Shrek - FRIENDS DON'T TREAT FRIENDS THAT WAY, THEY CARE FOR EACH OTHER!

There must be a lot of Cardinals players, especially those who were waiting for a teammate who never came, who are not sleeping well. LaRussa's probably sleeping fine. (The more's the pity.)

peterose00
05-03-2007, 06:36 PM
Well said. I hate comparing Baseball to any other buisness. Baseball has the anti trust exemption so it is very difficult to compare to any other workplace. If LaRussa had been suspended or at least punished would it have effected the Hancock situation, who knows, but it does not look good on the organization. As a baseball team I think the cardnals are going to have a tough time this year because there are players that knew what kind of situation Hancock was repeatively putting himself into. They had to atleast have some kind of knowledge about what Hancock did when he was away from the ball park. Did the players just brush it off? Did the manager brush it off because if he said anything he was being hypocritical?

Thanks Bucksfan. I appreciate that.

Put Tony LaRussa in the top management position at any firm in America -- certainly any form that generates in its field the kind of revenue that the Cardinals generate -- and have him do the exact same thing. The Board of Directors would be having him (albeit dicreetly and quietly) in an alcohol assessment and (at least) getting education on alcohol abuse.

Add Josh Hancock's mysterious 5:30 AM "drive" because he was tired and couldn't sleep. Then there was the place he was located -- literally on the same road that only has one thing located on it -- The "Oz" Strip Club. Then the car wreck that could have easily been an ealier disaster (the Illinois State Police's statement, not mine).

Add Josh Hancock's death (marijuana found in the car, three hours at Shannons prior to the accident) and the organization would be on heightened alert for alcohol and substance abuse within the entire firm. That would include massive training and education and a huge spotlight pointed on the problem.

That is what some posters don't seem to be able to fathom.

peterose00
05-03-2007, 06:40 PM
Here's my problem. Josh was a big boy and must be responsible for his actions.

HOWEVER

LaRussa must have seen there was a problem developing (especially after the unexcused late, hungover arrival for a NOON game) and couldn't be a role model or authority.

The broadcaster's restaurant saw he had a problem and didn't intervene (and should be sued)

Dave (soup) Campbell - was having cocktails with him and knew he had a problem and didn't intervene

His Teammates were waiting for him at his THIRD bar of the evening and they didn't have the sense to at least make sure his was in a taxi or limo?

It's a lot like some of the Bengals stupidity. To paraphrase Donkey from Shrek - FRIENDS DON'T TREAT FRIENDS THAT WAY, THEY CARE FOR EACH OTHER!

There must be a lot of Cardinals players, especially those who were waiting for a teammate who never came, who are not sleeping well. LaRussa's probably sleeping fine. (The more's the pity.)

Very good points -- all of them. As Jackson Browne says in "Rock Me on the Water" -- "O people look among you, the signs are everywhere -- you've left it for someone other than you, to be the ones to care"

Trying to get some folks to even see the culture of alcohol abuse is hard sometimes -- I'm afraid, if they can't see it on the St Louis Cardinals right now, they are not going to be able to ever see it.

peterose00
05-03-2007, 06:43 PM
There are potential Josh Hancocks in every workplace across the country. This certainly isn't just a baseball or sports or entertainer problem.

Who ever said it was just a baseball or sports or entertainer problem? The fact that the problem is widespread doesn't justify explaining it off as something other than it is.

Always Red
05-03-2007, 08:39 PM
LaRussa's probably sleeping fine. (The more's the pity.)

I agree with most of what you say, but I cannot believe that LaRussa is sleeping well over this. I'm not a Tony LaRussa fan (in general), but I do respect his smarts, and as an intelligent man, he realizes all of what has been said above, I do really think that.

Josh Hancock was identified by the Reds in April of 2006 as being lacking in the area of personal discipline. It was reflected in his weight (that was the Reds excuse), but at this point, I think the Reds knew more. They will never tell, nor should they.

If Josh's eyes were wide open, he'd have learned form his experience of being hard-balled by the Reds, and he would also have learned from his near miss experience of just days before his eventual death. Like many men his age, Josh did NOT learn from these experiences (mistakes), not at all. In fact, his experiences since the Reds let him go (catching on with the Cards, having an excellent season, and winning a World's Championship) only enabled him, in a sense, to continue on his path. He was bullet-proof, a world champ. Unfortunately, that path that would led to his eventual destruction.

Who is to blame? Only Josh Hancock, really. Good men who work for the Cardinals will agonize over this for a very long time. I have friends of my own who are out carousing 4-5 times a week, out very late, most probably driving impaired at least part of the time. At what point do you tell that person he has a problem? Especially when you occasionally sit there and have a beer (or two or three) with them?

Did the Cardinal organization enable him, in his impairment, at all? I don't think we have enough info at this point to tell.

I haven't seen any toxicology results yet, but my hunch is that Josh Hancock wasn't totally inebriated, but he was slightly drunk, driving, and fell asleep on his way to wherever he was going next.

Thank God that no one else was hurt.

TeamBoone
05-03-2007, 08:47 PM
Most of this thread could end up being moot if it's found that the accident was not alcohol-related.

Shouldn't Josh remain innocent until the details are revealed? And even if he isn't, his death is still a tragedy.

Spring~Fields
05-03-2007, 08:54 PM
Most of this thread could end up being moot if it's found that the accident was not alcohol-related.

Shouldn't Josh remain innocent until the details are revealed? And even if he isn't, his death is still a tragedy.

Seems right to me.

hebroncougar
05-03-2007, 09:33 PM
Here's my problem. Josh was a big boy and must be responsible for his actions.

HOWEVER

LaRussa must have seen there was a problem developing (especially after the unexcused late, hungover arrival for a NOON game) and couldn't be a role model or authority.

The broadcaster's restaurant saw he had a problem and didn't intervene (and should be sued)

Dave (soup) Campbell - was having cocktails with him and knew he had a problem and didn't intervene

His Teammates were waiting for him at his THIRD bar of the evening and they didn't have the sense to at least make sure his was in a taxi or limo?

It's a lot like some of the Bengals stupidity. To paraphrase Donkey from Shrek - FRIENDS DON'T TREAT FRIENDS THAT WAY, THEY CARE FOR EACH OTHER!

There must be a lot of Cardinals players, especially those who were waiting for a teammate who never came, who are not sleeping well. LaRussa's probably sleeping fine. (The more's the pity.)

That's about as poor a statement as one can make. Now how in the hell do you know that? Get real. :thumbdown

creek14
05-03-2007, 09:55 PM
That doesn't make it right. It doesn't explain or rationalize people dieing because it is tolerated or minimized.

If there is a culture that exists among the workplace where these people are employed, then the employer has some accountability. Fostering an abusive environment is defined by the things that happen, their regularity or frequency. Now St Louis has had their manager arrested for a DUI in spring training and had a player die about a month later.

That certainly qualifies as a problem.

Ummm, I re-read what I wrote and I can't find where I said it was right.

On the contrary, I was pointing out what a wide spread problem it is.

paintmered
05-03-2007, 10:03 PM
FWIW, I get fired immediately from my job if I get a DUI.

hebroncougar
05-03-2007, 10:06 PM
FWIW, I get fired immediately from my job if I get a DUI.


I do too as a HS teacher.

Always Red
05-03-2007, 10:11 PM
Most of this thread could end up being moot if it's found that the accident was not alcohol-related.

Shouldn't Josh remain innocent until the details are revealed? And even if he isn't, his death is still a tragedy.

Every death is a tragedy, in a way.

Proof? I haven't seen or heard of the tests yet, but I have read plenty of published accounts of Hancock drinking that night, being offered a ride, being offered a room, refusing, telling friends he was just going across the street and then driving away. Walt Jockety talking defensively about players being responsible for themselves, and that the team can't be responsible for them 24/7- that doesn't happen if there is not a reason, eh?

If the tests come back negative, then someone's lying and there is a coverup of sorts, not that I'm a conspiracy kook.

Like I said, the most probable scenario, IMO, is that Josh wasn't totally inebriated, felt like he was OK, and then tragically fell asleep while driving. And you're right, TB, it is a tragedy.

FlightRick
05-03-2007, 10:31 PM
Shouldn't Josh remain innocent until the details are revealed? And even if he isn't, his death is still a tragedy.

For one, no matter what, Josh ain't gonna be indicted for any crimes in this case, as he was the only victim; he can't "remain innocent" when there's nothing for him to be guilty of. For two, for me, we've long since passed the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshhold, so I'll keep on filtering all my opinions through those (utterly rational) assumptions. And for three, let's really be a little more careful about how we use words. "A tragedy"? Really? I'm fine with "sad," but something that happens dozens of times per day across the country shouldn't be labeled a "tragedy." You're not making yourself look more caring or considerate or PC, nor are you elevating Josh Hancock to Hero Status; you're just marginalizing the meaning of a word that people like me still like to be able to use for emphasis and impact.

A tangent, to try to show why that third point is on my mind (and is not just me purposely being a jerkface to another member): the dealy at Virginia Tech a few weeks ago was widely described as a "national tragedy." And that's a case where I'd probably have used that same word, too. But Jon Stewart raised a good point a few days later: here in the USofA, what happened at VATech, where 33 people died as the result of a lone Broken Human Being doing something unfathomably stupid and pointless, is labled a "tragedy." But when the same thing happens in Iraq, we just sit back and call it "Thursday." This got me in a soft, delicate underbelly region that I usually try to pretend I don't have; because man alive, was that ever a spot-on lambasting of our general lack of perspective. I'm not trying to glorify the ability to become desensitized, but I think there's something to be said for having some perspective and keeping the hyperbole to a minimum.

Also, I have to wonder if some of the folks posting on this thread have been out of the house in the last decade. Let's blame the Cards! Let's blame his teammates! Let's blame the restaurant owner! Let's blame (oh is this ever stupid) Dave Campbell! Sweet fancy Moses, people, you go to a place that serves booze, you're going to meet drunk people. If you really want to go up to each and every one of them and open a conversation with "So, are you driving, Drunky?" and try to suss out who will be permitted to leave the establishment and who won't, you will not save any lives. In fact, you'll probably just get punched in the face for being a load. Seriously: how the hell is some guy from ESPN meeting a C-grade mop-up pitcher for the first time reasonably responsible for what happened over the weekend? It'd be nice if we could stop the weak-constitutioned from drinking and driving, but what you're essentially aspiring to do is dictate a personal decision made by somebody who's probably not all that bright to begin with, and who has been rendered even dimmer by the sauce. And as the cliche goes, you can't legislate stupidity. So you just tell yourself "Well, I'm sure that staggering buffoon has a ride," you wash your hands, and you go on about the business of trying to enjoy yourself and not worrying about some other clown who may or may not understand the concept of Personal Accountability.

Sorry if that's cynical, but honestly, that's how it works in the real world.

The Cards' institutional responsibility? Hey, if the guy could show up and do his job and do it well, they don't really have much reason to give a crap what Hancock was doing in his free time. Looking at Hancock's performance over the past 15 months, he never gave them a reason to give a crap. Until 3 days before he died. Which is a pretty wafer thin margin in terms of the Cards being able to do anything meaningful in terms of addressing the issue. And additionally, I don't know about you, but I've done my share of Recreational Weekend Beverage Consumption followed by drives home, and have probably caught a few lucky breaks in that regard... but if I NEARLY FRICKING KILL MYSELF at 5:30am beacuse I'm wasted and/or daydreaming of all the sweet, sweet Stripper Pie I just got done ogling, then I take that as a wake-up call. And I -- as an intelligent, thinking human being, capable of putting Mind Over Matter -- don't need my boss or a counselor or even Johnny ESPN to get me to shape up a bit.

Yes, it's still sad. But that doesn't change the fact that what happened is pretty much the fault of one man. And since he's not here anymore to take a tongue-lashing, I don't see what all the on-going hand-wringing and prosyletizing is supposed to be accomplishing....

hebroncougar
05-03-2007, 10:54 PM
For one, no matter what, Josh ain't gonna be indicted for any crimes in this case, as he was the only victim; he can't "remain innocent" when there's nothing for him to be guilty of. For two, for me, we've long since passed the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshhold, so I'll keep on filtering all my opinions through those (utterly rational) assumptions. And for three, let's really be a little more careful about how we use words. "A tragedy"? Really? I'm fine with "sad," but something that happens dozens of times per day across the country shouldn't be labeled a "tragedy." You're not making yourself look more caring or considerate or PC, nor are you elevating Josh Hancock to Hero Status; you're just marginalizing the meaning of a word that people like me still like to be able to use for emphasis and impact.

A tangent, to try to show why that third point is on my mind (and is not just me purposely being a jerkface to another member): the dealy at Virginia Tech a few weeks ago was widely described as a "national tragedy." And that's a case where I'd probably have used that same word, too. But Jon Stewart raised a good point a few days later: here in the USofA, what happened at VATech, where 33 people died as the result of a lone Broken Human Being doing something unfathomably stupid and pointless, is labled a "tragedy." But when the same thing happens in Iraq, we just sit back and call it "Thursday." This got me in a soft, delicate underbelly region that I usually try to pretend I don't have; because man alive, was that ever a spot-on lambasting of our general lack of perspective. I'm not trying to glorify the ability to become desensitized, but I think there's something to be said for having some perspective and keeping the hyperbole to a minimum.

Also, I have to wonder if some of the folks posting on this thread have been out of the house in the last decade. Let's blame the Cards! Let's blame his teammates! Let's blame the restaurant owner! Let's blame (oh is this ever stupid) Dave Campbell! Sweet fancy Moses, people, you go to a place that serves booze, you're going to meet drunk people. If you really want to go up to each and every one of them and open a conversation with "So, are you driving, Drunky?" and try to suss out who will be permitted to leave the establishment and who won't, you will not save any lives. In fact, you'll probably just get punched in the face for being a load. Seriously: how the hell is some guy from ESPN meeting a C-grade mop-up pitcher for the first time reasonably responsible for what happened over the weekend? It'd be nice if we could stop the weak-constitutioned from drinking and driving, but what you're essentially aspiring to do is dictate a personal decision made by somebody who's probably not all that bright to begin with, and who has been rendered even dimmer by the sauce. And as the cliche goes, you can't legislate stupidity. So you just tell yourself "Well, I'm sure that staggering buffoon has a ride," you wash your hands, and you go on about the business of trying to enjoy yourself and not worrying about some other clown who may or may not understand the concept of Personal Accountability.

Sorry if that's cynical, but honestly, that's how it works in the real world.

The Cards' institutional responsibility? Hey, if the guy could show up and do his job and do it well, they don't really have much reason to give a crap what Hancock was doing in his free time. Looking at Hancock's performance over the past 15 months, he never gave them a reason to give a crap. Until 3 days before he died. Which is a pretty wafer thin margin in terms of the Cards being able to do anything meaningful in terms of addressing the issue. And additionally, I don't know about you, but I've done my share of Recreational Weekend Beverage Consumption followed by drives home, and have probably caught a few lucky breaks in that regard... but if I NEARLY FRICKING KILL MYSELF at 5:30am beacuse I'm wasted and/or daydreaming of all the sweet, sweet Stripper Pie I just got done ogling, then I take that as a wake-up call. And I -- as an intelligent, thinking human being, capable of putting Mind Over Matter -- don't need my boss or a counselor or even Johnny ESPN to get me to shape up a bit.

Yes, it's still sad. But that doesn't change the fact that what happened is pretty much the fault of one man. And since he's not here anymore to take a tongue-lashing, I don't see what all the on-going hand-wringing and prosyletizing is supposed to be accomplishing....

If I had rep points to give, you'd get some. Kudos, best post on the subject I've seen. :thumbup: :clap:

peterose00
05-03-2007, 11:55 PM
Who is to blame? Only Josh Hancock, really. Good men who work for the Cardinals will agonize over this for a very long time. I have friends of my own who are out carousing 4-5 times a week, out very late, most probably driving impaired at least part of the time. At what point do you tell that person he has a problem? Especially when you occasionally sit there and have a beer (or two or three) with them?

Did the Cardinal organization enable him, in his impairment, at all? I don't think we have enough info at this point to tell.

Excellent ideas, for sure. There are good men in the Cardinal organization. But there were good people at Enron too. But there was a culture that was allowed to fester and grow. My concern is that when the manager is out getting drunk and driving -- and one month later a player on that same team is killed by drinking at driving -- that is enough for me. Institute a strict team policy that crunches hard on alcohol abuse.

Let's say I'm wrong about this -- the worst that could happen in that the Cardinal organization has "overreacted" (if there is such a thing when a player dies while driving drunk).

I'd rather make that mistake than do too little and see more tragic results.

peterose00
05-03-2007, 11:56 PM
Thank God that no one else was hurt.

Amen !!!

peterose00
05-03-2007, 11:58 PM
Most of this thread could end up being moot if it's found that the accident was not alcohol-related.

Shouldn't Josh remain innocent until the details are revealed? And even if he isn't, his death is still a tragedy.

Witnesses have already come public that he was drinking for three hours at Shannons. More than a few people saw him inebriated. The bartender even offered him a cab. Marijuana was found in the vehicle as well.

It certainly is a tragedy no matter what the details.
No one disagees with that.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 12:00 AM
FWIW, I get fired immediately from my job if I get a DUI.

That is more common than not common. Try telling your Comany that this isn't fair because alcohol abuse is a widespread problem.

Bob Borkowski
05-04-2007, 12:05 AM
It certainly is a tragedy no matter what the details.
No one disagees with that.

Yeah, seems pretty tragic to me. But FlightRick in post 126 above sure doesn't think so. Maybe some of us have become a little desensetized to the 'deaths on the highway' thing.

paintmered
05-04-2007, 12:14 AM
That is more common than not common. Try telling your Comany that this isn't fair because alcohol abuse is a widespread problem.

I'm not saying I don't agree with the policy. I wish it were instituted more often than it is.

It makes me plan out my night in advance if I want to have a few drinks.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 12:15 AM
The Cards' institutional responsibility? Hey, if the guy could show up and do his job and do it well, they don't really have much reason to give a crap what Hancock was doing in his free time.

That is where you are wrong. He didn't show up to work on time.

Walk into any substance abuse treatment center or google it. If you are having alcohol cause problems at yur work, that is a key sign that there is a problem. The same goes for LaRussa.

There are such things as institutional responsibility with these things. Loo at the current situation with Rich Mcbride, Jamar Smith and others at the University of Illinois. The judge just ruled on McBride's case this week -- and commented how in his opinion little was being done at the University regarding the culture of alcohol abuse.

Just watch what happens next.

LaRussa has just as much of an issue - two incidents does begin to show an identifiable pattern of alcohol abuse.

Watch what happens with Hancock's family. just wait and se if his family doesn't file a lawsuit against Shannon's for not shutting him off earlier. They already are equipped with the statement of one of their employees that they offered him a cab.

The courts don't purely rule that this was Josh Hancock's issue and his alone.

I'd say you will see the Cardinals take a hard line stance and there will be lawsuits agianst the establishments where Hancock drank that night.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 12:18 AM
I'm not saying I don't agree with the policy. I wish it were instituted more often than it is.

It makes me plan out my night in advance if I want to have a few drinks.

I understand -- but that is the whole point. It's too bad the Cardinals didn't have a similar program in place that had Josh's attention to the point that he modified his behaviour. He would probably be alive today, if they did.

That is the whole point!!!

FlightRick
05-04-2007, 12:27 AM
That is where you are wrong. He didn't show up to work on time.

Dear peterose00: I'm very flattered that you found my post worthy of reading, quoting, and replying-to. Next time, please read all of it, extend your quoting by precisely one sentence, and then realize that your reply has nothing to do with what I just said.

As a relevant rebuttal to me: negative five zillion points. As a stand-alone post of your own thoughts on the matter: well, I'm sure that somebody, somewhere agrees with you, so fair play to you, good sir! Keep up the good work.

savafan
05-04-2007, 12:42 AM
FWIW, the Oakland Athletics are the only team in major league baseball that has a ban on alcohol being made available in the clubhouse.

FlightRick
05-04-2007, 12:49 AM
Yeah, seems pretty tragic to me. But FlightRick in post 126 above sure doesn't think so. Maybe some of us have become a little desensetized to the 'deaths on the highway' thing.

Were I in Colbert Mode tonight, I'd simply say: "Thanks, Bob, and I accept your apology."

But since I'm not, let me clarify for the more dense readers who may not have grasped that my comments were NOT related to the unfortunateness or sadness of this situation, but merely to the hyperbolic word choice....

Look, in another life, I make some coin writing about the dubious industry of Professional Wrestling. About 18 months ago, a performer by the name of Eddie Guerrero died at the age of 38. Clearly too young, and at a time when he was scheduled to win a world title, and after he'd gone through hell and back again to win back his wife and his kids. But at the end of the day, he still was found dead in his hotel room because of the drug abuses (steroids and otherwise) that he commited for roughly a decade, before he finally got his head on straight a couple years back.

I was, in no uncertain terms, a HUGE fan of this man. But yet, in roughly two weeks of covering his death, I never once uttered the word "tragic" or "tragedy," because it DID NOT APPLY. This was a man who probably got voted-for in a Death Pool or two before he got his life straightened out. He did some damage, it was not repairable, and in the end, it claimed him 30 years too soon. But he did it to himself and of his own free will. Sad? You freakin' betchya. But "tragic"? Not according to *my* sixth grade "Vocabulary Workshop" textbook.

And just to undermine any smartass comments about why I spent two weeks writing about something you've never even heard about: (1) because I'm good at it and as a result, there's money to be made, and (2) Eddie Guerrero was genuinely one of the 3-4 most talented and entertaining performers in his industry at the time of his death, and wasn't the equivalent of a disposable mop-up bullpen pitcher. His death was, to put it bluntly, a pretty big deal, and not just for his family and friends, but also for millions of people who were simply fans of being entertainted. Needless to say, regardless of my feelings on the matter, I never antogonized my traumatized and delicate audience by doing this whole "this is sad, but it isn't a tragedy" song and dance at the time.

Feel free to debate and discuss my opinions and my attitude when it comes to this matter. But don't question my character just because of this latest revelation about one of my hobbies.... if you do, you'll find that I can -- to use the parlance of said hobby -- "cut a promo" with the best of them.

TeamBoone
05-04-2007, 01:12 AM
And for three, let's really be a little more careful about how we use words. "A tragedy"? Really? I'm fine with "sad," but something that happens dozens of times per day across the country shouldn't be labeled a "tragedy." You're not making yourself look more caring or considerate or PC, nor are you elevating Josh Hancock to Hero Status; you're just marginalizing the meaning of a word that people like me still like to be able to use for emphasis and impact.

I used the word "tragedy" because that's EXACTLY what I meant to say. Just because you don't think it's a tregedy does not mean I do not. IMHO, any halfway decent person who dies of something other than old age is indeed a tragedy.

And please don't tell me what I am doing. You don't know me. I am NOT elevating Josh to hero status. I am NOT marginalizing the meaning of the word just because you don't agree with MY feeling.

Feel free to use the word "tragedy" in any way you deem fit, but please do NOT tell me how to use it.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 02:43 AM
Dear peterose00: I'm very flattered that you found my post worthy of reading, quoting, and replying-to. Next time, please read all of it, extend your quoting by precisely one sentence, and then realize that your reply has nothing to do with what I just said.

As a relevant rebuttal to me: negative five zillion points. As a stand-alone post of your own thoughts on the matter: well, I'm sure that somebody, somewhere agrees with you, so fair play to you, good sir! Keep up the good work.

You really shouldn't flatter yourself with any great feelings. I read your whole post. If I replied to everything you said, it would have been a serious waste of time (at best). :deadhorse

I let it slide at the time but your coment that really didn't require a response was "if I NEARLY FRICKING KILL MYSELF at 5:30am beacuse I'm wasted and/or daydreaming of all the sweet, sweet Stripper Pie I just got done ogling, then I take that as a wake-up call. And I -- as an intelligent, thinking human being, capable of putting Mind Over Matter -- don't need my boss or a counselor or even Johnny ESPN to get me to shape up a bit.". :rolleyes:

I let the boring rant slide about when to use the word "tragedy" and when not to use it.....:barf:

peterose00
05-04-2007, 02:44 AM
I used the word "tragedy" because that's EXACTLY what I meant to say. Just because you don't think it's a tregedy does not mean I do not. IMHO, any halfway decent person who dies of something other than old age is indeed a tragedy.

And please don't tell me what I am doing. You don't know me. I am NOT elevating Josh to hero status. I am NOT marginalizing the meaning of the word just because you don't agree with MY feeling.

Feel free to use the word "tragedy" in any way you deem fit, but please do NOT tell me how to use it.

I am with you every step of the way. I was thinking this same thing.:thumbup:

peterose00
05-04-2007, 02:47 AM
FWIW, the Oakland Athletics are the only team in major league baseball that has a ban on alcohol being made available in the clubhouse.

That is what they call -- a good start.

Always Red
05-04-2007, 07:35 AM
That is what they call -- a good start.

Do you really think that is the answer to this problem? We might as well go back to Prohibition then!

I don't recall reading about Josh Hancock getting drunk in the Cardinal locker room, do you? Banning beer in the locker room is not an attempt to help your employees with a problem, it's an attempt to reduce your own liability.

FWIW, I agree with much of what you have written in this thread, hitking00.

I think there is far too little attention paid these days to personal responsibility. It's no one else's "fault" when someone chooses to drink at a commercial establishement, lie to people who care for his safety about not driving, and then proceeds to die, needlessly, by operating a motor vehicle while impaired.

More laws and rules is not the answer. Looking at oneself in the mirror and taking responsiblity for your own actions, is exactly the answer.

Chip R
05-04-2007, 11:31 AM
Look, in another life, I make some coin writing about the dubious industry of Professional Wrestling. About 18 months ago, a performer by the name of Eddie Guerrero died at the age of 38. Clearly too young, and at a time when he was scheduled to win a world title, and after he'd gone through hell and back again to win back his wife and his kids. But at the end of the day, he still was found dead in his hotel room because of the drug abuses (steroids and otherwise) that he commited for roughly a decade, before he finally got his head on straight a couple years back.

I was, in no uncertain terms, a HUGE fan of this man. But yet, in roughly two weeks of covering his death, I never once uttered the word "tragic" or "tragedy," because it DID NOT APPLY. This was a man who probably got voted-for in a Death Pool or two before he got his life straightened out. He did some damage, it was not repairable, and in the end, it claimed him 30 years too soon. But he did it to himself and of his own free will. Sad? You freakin' betchya. But "tragic"? Not according to *my* sixth grade "Vocabulary Workshop" textbook.



I think there is far too little attention paid these days to personal responsibility. It's no one else's "fault" when someone chooses to drink at a commercial establishement, lie to people who care for his safety about not driving, and then proceeds to die, needlessly, by operating a motor vehicle while impaired.

More laws and rules is not the answer. Looking at oneself in the mirror and taking responsiblity for your own actions, is exactly the answer.


While I disagree with FlightRick about Guerrero's (and Hancock's) death being a tragedy because 99% of the time, someone dying is a tragedy. Whether it's self-inflicted or not a death is still tragic. But I do agree with him and AlwaysRed that blame has to be placed on the individual. Would signs in the locker rooms, counseling and alcohol awareness seminars have prevented this tragedy? Perhaps. It couldn't have hurt. But it's not an absoloute deterrant. Did Barry Bonds care if steroids were illegal when he started shooting himself up with them? Did Pete Rose care that he could be banned from baseball permanantly if he bet on the Reds? They were all aware of the dangers but they did it anyway.

It's entirely possible that Josh Hancock could have attended one of those sessions sponsored by the Cardinals and went over to Mike Shannon's restaurant or wherever and had dinner and several cocktails and done exactly the same thing. Free will and personal responsibility are the key words here. Josh allegedly was offered a ride home by someone at the restaurant. So, unless he was so out of it that he didn't understand, he made the decision by his own free will that he would drive his car to meet his teammates at another bar. It's sad but perhaps if there is a problem with alcohol abuse in the Cards clubhouse - or any other clubhouse or locker room - the death of Josh may do more to lessen that problem than any seminar or poster or whatever.

Reds Fanatic
05-04-2007, 12:29 PM
The police have announced Hancock was drunk at the time of the crash.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381071/



ST. LOUIS - St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock was legally drunk at the time of the accident that killed him, St. Louis Police Chief Joe Mokwa said Friday.

Earlier this week, police said that three days before he was killed in a highway wreck Hancock was involved in a predawn accident that police treated routinely.

Officers who talked with the 29-year-old reliever moments after the front of his sport utility vehicle was clipped by a tractor-trailer in this village known for its factories and strip clubs found Hancock lucid. He did not appear under the influence of alcohol, Police Chief Patrick Delaney said Tuesday

peterose00
05-04-2007, 12:51 PM
Do you really think that is the answer to this problem? We might as well go back to Prohibition then!

I don't recall reading about Josh Hancock getting drunk in the Cardinal locker room, do you? Banning beer in the locker room is not an attempt to help your employees with a problem, it's an attempt to reduce your own liability.

FWIW, I agree with much of what you have written in this thread, hitking00.

I think there is far too little attention paid these days to personal responsibility. It's no one else's "fault" when someone chooses to drink at a commercial establishement, lie to people who care for his safety about not driving, and then proceeds to die, needlessly, by operating a motor vehicle while impaired.

More laws and rules is not the answer. Looking at oneself in the mirror and taking responsiblity for your own actions, is exactly the answer.

Good comments. I just think the time has become past due that baseball teams bring their employee practices into the 21rst century. The locker room is their place of business and can you imagine having beer in the pop vending machines at your work? I don't think so.

This is a business and it's time baseball acted like it -- especially when guys are dieing.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 12:58 PM
It's entirely possible that Josh Hancock could have attended one of those sessions sponsored by the Cardinals and went over to Mike Shannon's restaurant or wherever and had dinner and several cocktails and done exactly the same thing. Free will and personal responsibility are the key words here. Josh allegedly was offered a ride home by someone at the restaurant. So, unless he was so out of it that he didn't understand, he made the decision by his own free will that he would drive his car to meet his teammates at another bar. It's sad but perhaps if there is a problem with alcohol abuse in the Cards clubhouse - or any other clubhouse or locker room - the death of Josh may do more to lessen that problem than any seminar or poster or whatever.

Sad but true.

It's also entirely possible -- if not probably -- that if Hancock didn't take any alcohol abuse training seriously -- it might have been in large part because the manager of the team was out getting DUI's in spring training.

That is my whole point about the culture of alcohol abuse -- in St louis or whereever it exists.

I recall years ago I worked for a Fortune 500 firm and employees were required to complete training modules regarding sexual harassment. All the while, it was a well known fact that the married President of this company was screwing around with several women and making thinly veiled advances on any female he saw.

There is a culture that develops within organizations and it is fostered by the actions of many.

If Josh Hancock got caught up in that to the point that he lost his life -- well, I would have to say that really is a tragedy.

flyer85
05-04-2007, 01:45 PM
Per ESPN - I guess this will be the legacy people remember. At least he didn't kill anyone other than himself. Baseball has a long ignored problem with alcohol abuse. I wonder if Bud will do anything.

BTW, the Oakland A's are the only home team that doesn't provide alcohol in the clubhouse after games.


Hancock was drunk, had marijuana in his car

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2860122

Yachtzee
05-04-2007, 02:35 PM
That is what they call -- a good start.

Why do you say that? Does it prevent ballplayers from going out and hitting the clubs afterwards? Nope. In fact, if I were the ballclub, I'd have no problem providing beer in the clubhouse after the game. I've invested enough in these guys so that if they're going to have a few beers after the game, I wouldn't mind if they did it somewhere where I know where they are and can get them a ride home if they have too many.

Maybe it's the way I was raised. I was raised in a German Catholic household where I was allowed to have beer and wine with the family as a teenager. My parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles thought it was better to have their kids partake of alcohol in a family setting where we could learn to do so responsibly. When I was old enough to go out to parties, their only rule, and it was a hard and fast "do not violate this" rule was that if I were to drink, I was not to drive.

Chip R
05-04-2007, 05:32 PM
LaRussa didn't think Josh had a drinking problem

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=larussahancock&prov=st&type=lgns

peterose00
05-04-2007, 05:38 PM
Per ESPN - I guess this will be the legacy people remember. At least he didn't kill anyone other than himself. Baseball has a long ignored problem with alcohol abuse. I wonder if Bud will do anything.

BTW, the Oakland A's are the only home team that doesn't provide alcohol in the clubhouse after games.



http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2860122

Lou Piniella was quoted as saying just today that he would not object at all in removing alcohol from the Cubs clubhouse. He said something like, "Whatever will be in the best interests of our players."

I agree.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 05:40 PM
Maybe it's the way I was raised. I was raised in a German Catholic household where I was allowed to have beer and wine with the family as a teenager. My parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles thought it was better to have their kids partake of alcohol in a family setting where we could learn to do so responsibly. When I was old enough to go out to parties, their only rule, and it was a hard and fast "do not violate this" rule was that if I were to drink, I was not to drive.

You asked why I said that and then went on to answer that question. You were taught to drink responsibly. Hancock obviously was not.

flyer85
05-04-2007, 05:40 PM
LaRussa didn't think Josh had a drinking problemnot exactly someone you would consider an authority on the subject. If you get behind the wheel drunk, you have a problem, plain and simple.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 05:43 PM
not exactly someone you would consider an authority on the subject. If you get behind the wheel drunk, you have a problem, plain and simple.

Absolutely!!!

FlightRick
05-04-2007, 08:12 PM
Feel free to use the word "tragedy" in any way you deem fit, but please do NOT tell me how to use it.

Oy. That honestly was not my intent. Although I admit it *was* my intent to try to tell people what the word "tragedy" technically means, on the off chance that might aid them in deciding how to use it. Being completely sincere and not-smart-assy, TB: I put in that entire explanationizing paragraph about VATech and "perspective" because I wanted very badly to not have my comments come off as a personal vendetta against your post or your usage.

It's honestly just more of a general peeve of mine that we live in a society where somebody can state "The sky is green," and then if I happen to be in earshot and call "bullplop" on that, the defense is "Shut up, that's my opnion and you have to respect it!"... good lord does that ever piss me off. I happen to think there are still right and wrong answers to a goodly number of questions in this world. I happen to think that if you attempt to pass of demonstrable falsehoods as "opinion," you should be publicly humliated and made to look like the idiot you are. And, as it pertains to this particular debate, I happen to think that words still mean specific, agreed-upon things.

tragedy: n. a sudden violent event that brings about great devastation.

Yes, I actually looked it up. Though it's an admittedly silly thing for me to pick to go to war over, I do feel strongly that this word iis not really the right one to be in play here in this thread.

If this makes me an insensitive jerk, so be it. We must agree to disagree. I'll respect your right to declare a sprained ankle to be a disasterous debacle of catastrophic proportions, if that is your wont. I just ask that you respect my right to cackle like a loon tomorrow every time NBC launches into a 5 minute Tribute to Barbaro that would convince alien beings looking on from space that the silly Americans must have screwed up and elected a horse as president, and that it was then assassinated in cold blood after winning five consecutive world wars, curing cancer, and ending world hunger.

Because there's nothing "tragic" about some fricking horse breaking its leg, no matter how hard 2 hours of brain-cell-killing pre-grame tries to convince otherwise tomorrow. Perspective, people, perspective. That's all I'm campaigning for, here....

Always Red
05-04-2007, 08:19 PM
Because there's nothing "tragic" about some fricking horse breaking its leg, no matter how hard 2 hours of brain-cell-killing pre-grame tries to convince otherwise tomorrow. Perspective, people, perspective. That's all I'm campaigning for, here....

My perspective is just to skip those mind numbing two hours of "pre-game"- look how many more brain cells you'll have at the end...if you don't kill'em with mint juleps! :laugh:

FlightRick
05-04-2007, 08:26 PM
Always Red --

Make no mistake: the only reason I'd waste my time on the pre-game is so I can propose a drinking game that requires all to take a sip of the sweet, sweet Julep every time the word "Barbaro" is uttered. Nothing beats having an heroic constitution so you can remain cogent and fully appreciate the spectacle of your friends devolving into borderline-retardation.

I just fear that, based on newspaper coverage the past 2 days, this drinking game will induce alcohol poiisoning no later than 4:10pm (eastern).

Redlegs
05-04-2007, 08:36 PM
If you get behind the wheel drunk, you have a problem, plain and simple.
I'm not sure I agree here. I'm in no way excusing drinking and driving, and it's not my intent to offend anyone who has had a loved one hurt by a drunk driver. I think if you get behind the wheel drunk, you've made a stupid decison. I don't think it necessarily makes a person an "alcoholic" or qualifies one as having a "drinking problem", particularly if it was a one time occurance. From my understanding, however, this was not a one time occurance with Josh Hancock.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 10:32 PM
Oy. That honestly was not my intent. Although I admit it *was* my intent to try to tell people what the word "tragedy" technically means, on the off chance that might aid them in deciding how to use it. Being completely sincere and not-smart-assy, TB: I put in that entire explanationizing paragraph about VATech and "perspective" because I wanted very badly to not have my comments come off as a personal vendetta against your post or your usage.

It's honestly just more of a general peeve of mine that we live in a society where somebody can state "The sky is green," and then if I happen to be in earshot and call "bullplop" on that, the defense is "Shut up, that's my opnion and you have to respect it!"... good lord does that ever piss me off. I happen to think there are still right and wrong answers to a goodly number of questions in this world. I happen to think that if you attempt to pass of demonstrable falsehoods as "opinion," you should be publicly humliated and made to look like the idiot you are. And, as it pertains to this particular debate, I happen to think that words still mean specific, agreed-upon things.

tragedy: n. a sudden violent event that brings about great devastation.

Yes, I actually looked it up. Though it's an admittedly silly thing for me to pick to go to war over, I do feel strongly that this word iis not really the right one to be in play here in this thread.

If this makes me an insensitive jerk, so be it. We must agree to disagree. I'll respect your right to declare a sprained ankle to be a disasterous debacle of catastrophic proportions, if that is your wont. I just ask that you respect my right to cackle like a loon tomorrow every time NBC launches into a 5 minute Tribute to Barbaro that would convince alien beings looking on from space that the silly Americans must have screwed up and elected a horse as president, and that it was then assassinated in cold blood after winning five consecutive world wars, curing cancer, and ending world hunger.

Because there's nothing "tragic" about some fricking horse breaking its leg, no matter how hard 2 hours of brain-cell-killing pre-grame tries to convince otherwise tomorrow. Perspective, people, perspective. That's all I'm campaigning for, here....

:deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2:

peterose00
05-04-2007, 10:38 PM
I'm not sure I agree here. I'm in no way excusing drinking and driving, and it's not my intent to offend anyone who has had a loved one hurt by a drunk driver. I think if you get behind the wheel drunk, you've made a stupid decison. I don't think it necessarily makes a person an "alcoholic" or qualifies one as having a "drinking problem", particularly if it was a one time occurance. From my understanding, however, this was not a one time occurance with Josh Hancock.

The word used was "problem" -- they said "get behind a wheel while drunk and you have a problem."

They didn't say "drinking problem" -- although statistically, that is usually the case.

But it is more than a "stupid decision" -- it is a BIG problem. If you don't think that this is true -- try explaining it to a judge.....when you are going before that judge for a DUI. You do have a problem.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 10:39 PM
From my understanding, however, this was not a one time occurance with Josh Hancock.

It wasn't even the first time for him -- on that night. It has been reported that Shannon's was the second bar he'd been to -- and he was supposedly headed for a third.

Spring~Fields
05-04-2007, 11:35 PM
:deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2: :rant2:

trag·ic [trájjik]
or trag·i·cal [trájjik'l]
adj
1. deeply sad: provoking deep sadness, distress, or grief
a tragic accident



trag·e·dy [trájjədee]
(plural trag·e·dies)
n
1. very sad event: an event in life that evokes feelings of sorrow or grief
2. disastrous event: a disastrous circumstance or event, e.g. serious illness, financial ruin, or fatality

I guess it depends on whose dictionary one is using. Then again it is taught that the meaning of a word is not in the definition of a word, but in the user of the word.

peterose00
05-04-2007, 11:47 PM
You got that right, Springfield

Rotater Cuff
05-05-2007, 08:20 AM
There are potential Josh Hancocks in every workplace across the country. This certainly isn't just a baseball or sports or entertainer problem.

But baseball players are the heroes for our young. Rappers, movie stars and joe blow lunchpails don't make kids starry eyed.
Baseball players are allowed to be boys well into adulthood. They play while we work.
When you hear about alcohol being served in clubhouses, ask yourself: WHY? These boys have it all. Why encourage them to fall?

peterose00
05-05-2007, 04:17 PM
Now the Cardinals are getting rid of the beer in their clubhouse -- a step in the right direction -- taken too late. If this begins to effect the changes that need to occur in clubhouses across America and swings the pendulum away from the culture of alcohol abuse, then it is something positive -- albeit at too high of a cost.

Yachtzee
05-05-2007, 05:58 PM
Now the Cardinals are getting rid of the beer in their clubhouse -- a step in the right direction -- taken too late. If this begins to effect the changes that need to occur in clubhouses across America and swings the pendulum away from the culture of alcohol abuse, then it is something positive -- albeit at too high of a cost.

Yep. Beer in the clubhouse. That's what got him. Had nothing to do with the fact that he was out at the clubs and still got behind the wheel of a car. Prohibition is not going to do anything. It's fine for the Cardinals from a liability perspective, but it's not going to do anything to solve the problem of drunk driving. Raising the drinking age hasn't done it in this country. All it's lead to is higher rates of binge drinking among college students. Maybe Hancock's death will have a meaningful impact in making Cards' players think twice before getting behind the wheel, but it won't last. The only way you're going to get real change is by encouraging a culture of responsibility. Go out and have your fun guys, but do it responsibly and don't drive. Get these guys into the habit of calling cabs or limos or using a designated driver. If the Mets can get a clubby to hook them up with banned substances, why can't a ballclub get a clubby to be a designated driver for these guys?

We tried prohibition in this country once. It failed miserably.

Always Red
05-05-2007, 06:45 PM
Good post, Yachtzee.

I agree, and think that removing beer from the Cardinal clubhouse is a politically correct over-reaction to one young man's poor decision.

Here's what I posted about it over on ORG:


Hancock's blood alcohol level was 0.157.

here's a good blood alcohol content calculator: http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm

To give you an idea of how much he needed to drink to reach that level, using the blood alcohol content calculator above, he would have needed to drink 8 whiskey highballs in one hour, to reach a BAC of 0.150. That's if he weighed the 217 pounds that's listed officially. If he weighed more, he would have obviously needed to drink more.

And now, the Cardinals have banned alcohol from their clubhouse. I don't have a problem with that, per se, and I realize that they had to do something, at least from a PR standpoint. But Jocketty pointed out that guys don't sit in the clubhouse and get drunk, they go out. It's about personal responsibility. Each guy needs to police himself.

Banning alcohol (beer) from the clubhouse really just limits the Cardinal's liability more than anything else. I think it's an empty gesture, strictly a move for PR, which is something I understand that they needed to do, given the alcohol problems the Cardinals have had this year.

If the Cardinals were serious about alcohol awareness and not drinking and driving, they would no longer sell Anheuser-Busch beer products in Busch Stadium. I'm serious. Baseball cannot continue to encourage it's fans to buy $7 beer throughout the game, and then encourage sobriety as well.

I would be totally against no beer in the ballpark, personally. I have learned to drink responsibly, to use designated drivers, and to be a designated driver when necessary. But I did not always act in this manner; and certainly every single day, people drive impaired.


I enjoy living in a free society, where I am free to choose to use alcohol (and tobacco products), responsibly, if I so choose to, in a legal fashion. Since I mentioned tobacco, I've got to say that alcohol has cause more pain, death, suffering and misery than tobacco ever has, and yet tobacco is outlawed publicly in more and more places in the US. Why? political correctness, run amuck.

If baseball thinks there really is an alcohol problem in it's sport, it will outlaw alcohol in all of it's ballparks, players and fans, from sea to shining sea. Anything less would be just hypocritical. Of course, that won't happen, nor do I think it should. The Cardinals banning beer in their clubhouse should be rightly seen for what it is- an empty shallow gesture, designed to try to save some face and appeal to those whom are satisfied with politically correct actions like this.

Josh Hancock, may God rest his soul, made a very poor set of decisions the other night. Men have been getting drunk and causing harm to themselves and others for literally thousands and thousands of years. Prohibition does not work; that was tried here and failed, miserably.

Banning alcohol is not the answer- the answer is already being addressed by law enforcement throughout the country- rigid enforcement of DUI laws.

Always Red
05-05-2007, 07:14 PM
Now the Cardinals are getting rid of the beer in their clubhouse -- a step in the right direction -- taken too late. If this begins to effect the changes that need to occur in clubhouses across America and swings the pendulum away from the culture of alcohol abuse, then it is something positive -- albeit at too high of a cost.

What about selling beer at the ballpark at all, then?

I've seen lots of posts here stating "well, we don't have beer at my office." Well, we don't at mine, either (and I'm the boss!). But baseball is an entertainment business, it's not like our jobs. The problem is not the "clubhouses across America."

I've not read anywhere that Josh Hancock was drinking in the Cardinal clubhouse, did you?

The culture of alcohol abuse has been going on for millenia, since man first learned to ferment and distill grain. I do totally agree with any and all type of teaching and mentoring these rich young men, with too much time on their hands, and too many adoring fans, how to behave responsibly. But this is in no way a baseball problem. Drunken driving is a societal problem, one that is being addressed in a much better way, a much tougher way, than it was when I was 29 years old and stupid. yes, there is a long way to go, and hopefully someday cars will be developed that will actually detect and prevent operation by persons who are impaired.

But again, banning beer in the Cardinal clubhouse is nothing, empty, devoid of any reason or meaning, and meant only to satisfy PR needs.

24 other young men (and their coaches and manager) learned a hard lesson the other night about drinking and driving, one they will never forget. Maybe Josh Hancock's unnecessary death will prevent this from happening to other young (and not so young) people.

You know what the Cardinals can do that would really impress me? Do some public service announcements, on national TV, about drinking responsibly, and the dangers of driving impaired. To me, that would be a hell of a lot more effective than taking beer out of the clubhouse.

peterose00
05-05-2007, 08:24 PM
During my working career that extends over four decades now, I have witnessed a dramatic shift in how alcohol abuse is not tolerated nearly like it once was. A difference for the better has been made.

f banning alcohol in clubhouses all across America keeps this shift moving in this same positive direction, then why wouldn't anyone want to do it? Can anyone with a brain or a conscience argue otherwise?

I am sick of reading that this is just the way it has always been. No it is not!! Things are better in America regarding alchol abuse now. They are not as good as they need to be, but the are better than they used to be -- much better. And if one person doesn't die because that shift continues and gets progressively better, then that alone is reason enough to do it without question.

peterose00
05-05-2007, 08:50 PM
I agree, and think that removing beer from the Cardinal clubhouse is a politically correct over-reaction to one young man's poor decision.

Hancock, may God rest his soul, made a very poor set of decisions the other night. Men have been getting drunk and causing harm to themselves and others for literally thousands and thousands of years. Prohibition does not work; that was tried here and failed, miserably.

Banning alcohol is not the answer- the answer is already being addressed by law enforcement throughout the country- rigid enforcement of DUI laws.

The culture of alcohol abuse that existed among the St Louis organization is right there for everyone to see. Not counting the things we are not aware of, here are the things that we do know:

(1) LaRussa's DUI arrest in spring training (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(2) Full refrigerators of various Annheiser Busch products were wheeled into the Cardinal clubhouse for every game, including road games. (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(3) Hancock was involved in an accident on Thursday at 5:30 AM on a road that had only two establishments (the Oz Strip Club and a 24 hour liquor store). While police report that they did not administer an alcohol assessment and stated that Hancock appered to be in control of his faculties -- there was not an absolute assuance that alcohol was not involved in some way. (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(4) Hancock showed up seriously late for a gamethe next day -- a day game against the Reds. He said publically that he overslept on a new mattress. It has been widely reported that he told Dave Campbell that LaRussa was pissed at him because he showed up so hung over. So what was reported publically was vastly different than what was known to be ture privately (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(5) Nothing was done to Hancock for missing work -- LaRussa said he talked sternly to Hancock about this issue. He went on to say, "maybe I didn't do that as well as I should". No fines or suspensions. (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(6) Hancock spent three hours at Shannons drinking. He was obviously drunk. Now Shannons is located about two blocks from Busch Stadium in St Louis. It is frequented by numerous players and baseball people. Clearly they knew that Hancock was in there getting blitzed and no one did or said anything about it (see culture of alcohol abuse).

(7) If u were just some guy who was deciding to drink yourself into oblivion, would you choose to do that in a place where many people who worked at your same team and many others associated with the team would see it in plain view. The answer is that the only wayyouwould make that choice is if you knew it would not create a problem for you with anyone within that organization. (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(8) It has been widely reported that Hancock was driving to yet another bar and was to meet up with a number of other Cardinal players (Jim Edmnds amng them. This is at 12:30 AM -- with Hancock's blood alcohol level already at twice the legal limit in Missouri (see culture of alcohol abuse)

Yes, Hancock made very poor decisions -- but I have heard enough and seen enough. There is/was a culture of alcohol abuse that existed and possibly still exists that certainly didn't help -- ad if anythng, made it easy for Hancock to make such poor decisions so as to cost him his life.

I don't mean to sound cruel, but for anyone to try to spin this any other way is to either be stupid, in complete denial or an active acoholic themselves.

Yachtzee
05-05-2007, 08:54 PM
During my working career that extends over four decades now, I have witnessed a dramatic shift in how alcohol abuse is not tolerated nearly like it once was. A difference for the better has been made.

f banning alcohol in clubhouses all across America keeps this shift moving in this same positive direction, then why wouldn't anyone want to do it? Can anyone with a brain or a conscience argue otherwise?

I am sick of reading that this is just the way it has always been. No it is not!! Things are better in America regarding alchol abuse now. They are not as good as they need to be, but the are better than they used to be -- much better. And if one person doesn't die because that shift continues and gets progressively better, then that alone is reason enough to do it without question.

It seems to me like your problem is more with people drinking alcohol, rather than just the specific problem of drunk driving. Those are two different issues. Not everyone who drinks and drives is an alcohol abuser and not everyone who drinks is an alcohol abuser. What do you define as alcohol abuse? What is your real goal here? Is it responsible drinking or is it prohibition?

peterose00
05-05-2007, 09:13 PM
It seems to me like your problem is more with people drinking alcohol, rather than just the specific problem of drunk driving. Those are two different issues. Not everyone who drinks and drives is an alcohol abuser and not everyone who drinks is an alcohol abuser. What do you define as alcohol abuse? What is your real goal here? Is it responsible drinking or is it prohibition?

In a post above, I listed 8 examples of why I feel that a culture of alcohol abuse existed in St Louis. I am not against people drinking alcohol. No where have I written anything that even remotely suggests that. But if a clear-cut series of events have occured that absolutely point to a culture of alcohol abuse that exists within any workplace, then the "goal" is to have other people see it for what it is.

I am not against people being able to enjoy drinks at a ball game. But if they abuse alcohol to the point that they are dangerous to themselves or others, then that should be dealt with aggressively.

How and why could you possibly have any problem with that?

Like I said previously -- I don't mean to sound cruel, but these lame explanations about how this is a step towards prohibition or is the way it always has been and therefore always will be -- are really about as deep as a birdbath. The people offering them are either stupid, in serious denial about alcohol abuse or active alcoholics themselves.

Yachtzee
05-05-2007, 09:50 PM
In a post above, I listed 8 examples of why I feel that a culture of alcohol abuse existed in St Louis. I am not against people drinking alcohol. No where have I written anything that even remotely suggests that. But if a clear-cut series of events have occured that absolutely point to a culture of alcohol abuse that exists within any workplace, then the "goal" is to have other people see it for what it is.

I am not against people being able to enjoy drinks at a ball game. But if they abuse alcohol to the point that they are dangerous to themselves or others, then that should be dealt with aggressively.

How and why could you possibly have any problem with that?

Like I said previously -- I don't mean to sound cruel, but these lame explanations about how this is a step towards prohibition or is the way it always has been and therefore always will be -- are really about as deep as a birdbath. The people offering them are either stupid, in serious denial about alcohol abuse or active alcoholics themselves.

So you're taking two events with a single ballplayer over the span of a few days, tossing in one incident by someone else, throwing it in with a fridge of beer, calling it a culture of abuse and saying the fridge of beer was the problem? Really? And anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or an alcoholic? Bravo, my good chap! You're well on your way to winning the internet.

FYI, I have no problem with punishing people who drink to excess and then get behind the wheel of a car. I've said as much. I've actually dealt with it on a daily basis for the past year through work and I have no problem with stiff penalties for those who drink too much and end up hurting others. But I've also seen that outright prohibitions just don't work. Taking the beer out of the clubhouse wouldn't have saved Josh Hancock and it's not going to save the next guy. The only way you're going to do that is by encouraging guys to look out for each other and promote an atmosphere of responsibility.

peterose00
05-05-2007, 10:06 PM
So you're taking two events with a single ballplayer over the span of a few days, tossing in one incident by someone else, throwing it in with a fridge of beer, calling it a culture of abuse and saying the fridge of beer was the problem? Really? And anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or an alcoholic? Bravo, my good chap! You're well on your way to winning the internet.

No, pal, what I said isn't even remotely close to that. If you somehow conclude that from what I actually said, then I suspect you are unclear in your understanding for reasons that one can only speculate -- take it one day at a time, pal.

Always Red
05-05-2007, 11:00 PM
Like I said previously -- I don't mean to sound cruel, but these lame explanations about how this is a step towards prohibition or is the way it always has been and therefore always will be -- are really about as deep as a birdbath. The people offering them are either stupid, in serious denial about alcohol abuse or active alcoholics themselves.

And I really can't see how taking beer out of a place where people do not abuse it is supposed to solve the problem of drunk driving, which certainly IS a problem.

You have approached this discussion with Yachtzee and me as if we are defending the rights of drunk drivers, which we CERTAINLY are not.

You never did respond to my assertion that removing the beer from the clubhouse is simply a gesture, a politically correct attempt to appease certain folks who do not understand the real problem. It does not solve anything.

Since I am one of the two discussing this issue with you, I will assume you are telling me (by your remarks above) that I am "either stupid, in denial about alcohol abuse, or an active alcoholic." I am none of those things, and I owe you no more explanation than what I have given above in the thread. If you reread those, you will see that I am very clearly stating that alcohol can be enjoyed responsibly, BUT others should not be threatened by those using it. I can only assume (as you have done with me, by your above remarks) that you are one of those Americans who is satisfied with politically correct actions that actually solve NOTHING.

Drunk driving is a problem. It needs to be fixed. It is less of a problem than it was when I was a teenager, 35 years ago.

And calling people who are willing to have cordial discussions with you names, or intimating that they have a drinking problem as well, doesn't solve anything either. :thumbdown

hebroncougar
05-05-2007, 11:02 PM
So............anyone who has a boss who had had a DUI, has had a fridge full of beer, been late to work, been to a strip club or a 24 hour alcohol establishment, and not been sent to alcohol rehab for being late to work, works in a place that promotes a culture of abusing alcohol?

realistic
05-05-2007, 11:15 PM
I think the Cardinals reaction is an admission that there is an organizational problem. No proof to it, but only logical reasoning.

Maybe totally off, but who cares. If I were the owner there would be no beer in clubhouse - and yes I am a drinker, but rarely do I drink on the job..

peterose00
05-05-2007, 11:57 PM
I think the Cardinals reaction is an admission that there is an organizational problem. No proof to it, but only logical reasoning.

Thank you.

Some of these folks are mixed up in their metaphors.

peterose00
05-06-2007, 12:01 AM
So............anyone who has a boss who had had a DUI, has had a fridge full of beer, been late to work, been to a strip club or a 24 hour alcohol establishment, and not been sent to alcohol rehab for being late to work, works in a place that promotes a culture of abusing alcohol?

If the fridge full of beer is in your break room at work, if you were late to work because you were too hung over to get there on time, was at a 24 hour alcohol establishment just prior to idling out past a stop sign and having your bumper torn off by a semi while you were out driving around at 5:30 AM and the boss who had the DUI didn't come down too hard on your because he was in the same situation about 30 days prior -- and all these things happened in a relatively short period of time -- and then you died while drunk to the point of twice the legal limit while driving to hook up and drink more with fellow teammates -- then, absolutely.

I think you are on to what I am saying.

peterose00
05-06-2007, 12:08 AM
And I really can't see how taking beer out of a place where people do not abuse it is supposed to solve the problem of drunk driving, which certainly IS a problem.

If that is all that changes and the pattern of alcohol abuse that I referred to in my 8 points above doesn't change, then you are absolutely right. A token gesture alone won't accomplish any real change.

But if the organization admits it needs to address the culture of alcohol abuse and then leaves the refrigerator filled with Anheiser Busch products in the clubhouse, that wouldn't be right either. The 'fridge needs to go.

Redlegs
05-06-2007, 12:11 AM
I'm with Yachtzee on this one.

peterose00
05-06-2007, 04:08 PM
So you're taking two events with a single ballplayer over the span of a few days, tossing in one incident by someone else, throwing it in with a fridge of beer, calling it a culture of abuse and saying the fridge of beer was the problem? Really? And anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or an alcoholic? Bravo, my good chap! You're well on your way to winning the internet.

Let's turn your response around -- so you are saying that we should ignore the things that happened that are clearly there to see -- ignore the DUI, ignore the beer in the clubhouse, disregard that LaRussa also had a DUI, forget the accident last Thursday at 5:30 am AND ALL THE SUBSEQUENT LIES -- NONE OF THAT MATTERS?????

You are delusional.

hebroncougar
05-06-2007, 04:26 PM
Let's turn your response around -- so you are saying that we should ignore the things that happened that are clearly there to see -- ignore the DUI, ignore the beer in the clubhouse, disregard that LaRussa also had a DUI, forget the accident last Thursday at 5:30 am AND ALL THE SUBSEQUENT LIES -- NONE OF THAT MATTERS?????

You are delusional.

No, I think you are the one that's delusional. Pretending to know what you say the Cardinals organization should have known (or assumed) in your book. We still don't know if Hancock had a serious problem with alcohol. For all we know, this could have been a one week freaking drinking binge due to a girlie problem of something. Get off the bandwagon. Geeze, you talk about :deadhorse

peterose00
05-06-2007, 07:39 PM
No, I think you are the one that's delusional. Pretending to know what you say the Cardinals organization should have known (or assumed) in your book. We still don't know if Hancock had a serious problem with alcohol. For all we know, this could have been a one week freaking drinking binge due to a girlie problem of something. Get off the bandwagon. Geeze, you talk about :deadhorse

I let the result speak for the validity of my thoughts -- the guy is dead as a result of his DUI.

Even if it was a one week binge -- which I doubt -- that doesn't justify or explain anything. People die as a result of binges. Talk to a chemical dependency counselor about the idea of binges -- they'll laugh you out of the room for showing that you don't know what you are talking about -- just as I just did.

Always Red
05-06-2007, 08:00 PM
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Why is it always someone else's fault?

Josh Hancock got drunk after work was over, off site, made a series of disastrous decisions (which involved lying to others who were trying to get him home safely), and basically killed himself. Thank God no one else was injured.

Unfortunately, this happens everyday. No one else's employer gets blamed for after work activities, and the Cardinals organization was not involved in getting Josh Hancock drunk, not at all. You keep harping on the beer in the clubhouse, but the simple fact of the matter is that is not where Josh got drunk!

The St. Louis Cardinals are owned by the largest brewery in the United States. Maybe this is why they get blamed, so much by you?

It's become pretty obvious that you are totally against the legal enjoyment of alcohol, which is fine with me, everyone is entitled to their opinions. I am totally against driving while impaired.


I let the result speak for the validity of my thoughts -- the guy is dead as a result of his DUI.

You're exactly right- it was Hancock's DUI. No one else forced him to do it. He is at blame, and him alone. Does your employer follow you around at night to be sure you get home safe? Or, if you're the boss, do you follow them around, to be sure they're not driving impaired? I would guess not!

Truth be told, I really dislike the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team. As much as I'd like to see the Cardinals fail in every way, I cannot agree with you that they share blame in this. I think you're wrong. But that's just my opinion.

Another thing- your opinion really is no better than anyone else's opinion, and your sanctimonious attitude toward others on this thread is tiresome. No one here has even tried to say that driving while drunk is OK, which you have tried your best to intimate that that's what we're saying. :rolleyes:

RFS62
05-06-2007, 09:00 PM
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Why is it always someone else's fault?


:clap:

Excellent series of posts by Yahtzee and Always Red.

peterose00
05-06-2007, 09:15 PM
:clap:

Excellent series of posts by Yahtzee and Always Red.

Ah the amazing ability to have one person respnd positively through multipl screen names.

Whatever.

Take it one day at a time, pal.

RFS62
05-06-2007, 09:17 PM
Ah the amazing ability to have one person respnd positively through multipl screen names.

Whatever.

Take it one day at a time, pal.



What the heck are you talking about?

peterose00
05-06-2007, 09:21 PM
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Why is it always someone else's fault?

Josh Hancock got drunk after work was over, off site, made a series of disastrous decisions (which involved lying to others who were trying to get him home safely), and basically killed himself. Thank God no one else was injured.

Unfortunately, this happens everyday. No one else's employer gets blamed for after work activities, and the Cardinals organization was not involved in getting Josh Hancock drunk, not at all. You keep harping on the beer in the clubhouse, but the simple fact of the matter is that is not where Josh got drunk!

The St. Louis Cardinals are owned by the largest brewery in the United States. Maybe this is why they get blamed, so much by you?

It's become pretty obvious that you are totally against the legal enjoyment of alcohol, which is fine with me, everyone is entitled to their opinions. I am totally against driving while impaired.



You're exactly right- it was Hancock's DUI. No one else forced him to do it. He is at blame, and him alone. Does your employer follow you around at night to be sure you get home safe? Or, if you're the boss, do you follow them around, to be sure they're not driving impaired? I would guess not!

Truth be told, I really dislike the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team. As much as I'd like to see the Cardinals fail in every way, I cannot agree with you that they share blame in this. I think you're wrong. But that's just my opinion.

Another thing- your opinion really is no better than anyone else's opinion, and your sanctimonious attitude toward others on this thread is tiresome. No one here has even tried to say that driving while drunk is OK, which you have tried your best to intimate that that's what we're saying. :rolleyes:

What is being ignored is that there were signs everywhere leading up to this. No one did anything under the same lame tired excuse that Josh Hancock was just doing his own thing.

You are choosing to blind yourself to the culture of alcohol abuse that existed -- which is why they are now removing the beer from the clubhouse. Josh Hancock's death simply puts a punctuation mark on that fact -- and maybe he didn't need to die. It certainly is a shame that only after the death people now step up and start doing what they should have done before he died -- care enough to stop the insanity of alcohol abuse. It isn't/wasn't ONLY the beer in the clubhouse (I made that quite clear -- unless you are stupid) -- that was just one of my list of eight things that should have all been clear warning signs.

peterose00
05-06-2007, 09:22 PM
What the heck are you talking about?

Cling to your 12 step program, pal.

Chip R
05-06-2007, 09:29 PM
It isn't/wasn't ONLY the beer in the clubhouse (I made that quite clear -- unless you are stupid) -- that was just one of my list of eight things that should have all been clear warning signs.


Easy, pal. We can do without the insults.

RedFanAlways1966
05-06-2007, 09:36 PM
It isn't/wasn't ONLY the beer in the clubhouse (I made that quite clear -- unless you are stupid)...

Why call people stupid? Is it arrogance, a superiority complex or something else that make people do this? Is it possible to take a view w/out belittling people and calling them stupid? Because someone does not agree with you does not make it okay to call them stupid.

Perhaps people are not as smart as you in your opinion, but that does not make them stupid. Thank you.

BCubb2003
05-06-2007, 09:41 PM
I think this thread shows how frustrating it is to get a handle on this problem. I've read some reasonable points on both sides of this, and some that were overshooting the mark and not productive. Where I live, the big problem is teenagers dying in crashes. It's possible to rationalize and be in denial, but it's also easy to overstate the case.

I'm sure the message the Cardinals want to express is that there's a way to drink responsibly, and maybe free beer in the workplace is not a part of that.

It's equally reasonable to see that move as so indirect to what actually happened in the Hancock case that it's not really relevant. It's hard to make the case that the Cardinals' refrigerator was relevant to someone who was found with beer, pot and texting while driving.

Yet, there's a cultural aspect to this that remains elusive. Baseball and especially the Cardinals have always been closely linked to alcohol. That doesn't follow that drunken driving is inherently part of that, but then, why isn't there a bright line between the two (drinking and driving)?

I try to think of a place that has such a strong drinking culture and a strong driving culture and manages to keep them separate. I think of Germany, where you're driving drunk at .0000001. I'm not sure the U.S. could adjust to a culture that's as committed as that, and one that's built on walking home from the neighborhood bar, taking the train home from the city, etc.

It's reasonable to say that Josh Hancock had problems that go far beyond the Cardinals' refrigerator and baseball's connection to alcohol. And that LaRussa did too, for that matter.

But it will happen again, and we'll be no closer to an answer.

TeamDunn
05-06-2007, 09:42 PM
Cling to your 12 step program, pal.

You made some good points in the beginning of this thread...please don't go attacking the long standing respected members of the forum just because they don't agree with you...it will only turn out ugly for you. :( RFS has been around forever and does not deserve your rath.

It may be time to step away from it for a bit. I think everyone gets what you are saying...they just don't agree with any or all of it 100%.

VR
05-06-2007, 09:46 PM
LaRussa didn't think Josh had a drinking problem

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=larussahancock&prov=st&type=lgns


Ahh, ignorance is bliss.

Tony had no clue half his A's roster were hooked up to IV Bags at their lockers before games with the capital letters S-T-E-R-O-I-D-s written on them in fluerescent green either.

I don't blame LaRussa at all really, but he isn't exactly a positive role model to speak out against drug and alcohol abuse (unless it involves ferrets or squirrels)

VR
05-06-2007, 09:48 PM
What the heck are you talking about?

haahhahhahah

that was pretty funny

RFS62
05-06-2007, 10:10 PM
Cling to your 12 step program, pal.



You sound pretty passionate about this subject. That's a good thing, IMO. Hopefully you can do or have done some good in the world with this really tough topic.

I'm not really sure what I said to set you off. I'm not so sure I care, either, if that's the best you can do when I ask you what you're talking about.

It doesn't bother me that you are slamming me with your little remarks. Knock yourself out if it makes you feel better.

GAC
05-06-2007, 10:35 PM
Ah the amazing ability to have one person respnd positively through multipl screen names.

Whatever.

Take it one day at a time, pal.


Cling to your 12 step program, pal.


What is that all about? The guy makes one post and simply agrees with what two other posters state about personal responsibility, and you make this ridiculous accusation concerning multiple screen names and 12 step program?

What happened to Josh was tragic. But sadly it's happening everyday all over this country to people who aren't high profile. I'm over 50 years old. In the last 30-40 years I've had friends and people I knew who have died as a result of alcohol-related traffic accidents. Some were victims hit by drunk drivers. Other were the drunk drivers. And many, while in a state of shock, stood around like we are on this thread, trying to explain the "hows and whys" that lead to these tragedies, was there something we should've/could've done to prevent it, and how it could have been avoided.

The "bottomline" is that it does come down to personal responsibility. And when we see a close friend or family member that we think has a problem, then we can make our best effort to intervene and try to get them to see their problem and get help. But that is all one can do.

paintmered
05-06-2007, 10:55 PM
Cling to your 12 step program, pal.

Stop with the backhanded responses like these. Consider this your warning.

Chip R
05-06-2007, 11:16 PM
Ahh, ignorance is bliss.

Tony had no clue half his A's roster were hooked up to IV Bags at their lockers before games with the capital letters S-T-E-R-O-I-D-s written on them in fluerescent green either.

I don't blame LaRussa at all really, but he isn't exactly a positive role model to speak out against drug and alcohol abuse (unless it involves ferrets or squirrels)


Good point. Although if a guy is performing on the field - and this isn't just relevant to baseball and sports, it happens everywhere - you tend not to rock the boat. It's only when they are messing up and you see their problem that you take action.

Whether Josh had a drinking problem or not, he was performing well for the Cards. If Tony suspected he had a drinking problem, he was probably going to look the other way because he was doing his job well. If he did suspect he had a problem and he told the front office about it and they told Josh to get treatment, Tony's going to lose a pitcher for at least a couple of weeks. If Josh had not been pitching well and he goes to rehab, he's off your roster for at least a few weeks. And you can substitute pretty much any manager's name for LaRussa's and about any player's name for Josh's. If you perform well, they will keep you around, no matter what. If you don't they will find any excuse to get rid of you.

TeamBoone
05-06-2007, 11:49 PM
Baseball cannot continue to encourage it's fans to buy $7 beer throughout the game, and then encourage sobriety as well.

I don't agree with this at all. People will do what they want to do, regardless of who is preaching.

Personally, charging $7 for a beer does not seem to be encouraging drinking... IMHO, it's quite the opposite.... more like discouraging it by charging such a high price. I think it's an outrageous price, but I still MIGHT spend the money on one or two beers because I'm at the ball game!

People can drink responsibly, regardless of the price. And I'd hardly have a drink or two because "baseball told me to".

Dracodave
05-06-2007, 11:56 PM
I don't agree with this at all. People will do what they want to do, regardless of who is preaching.

Personally, charging $7 for a beer does not seem to be encouraging drinking... IMHO, it's quite the opposite.... more like discouraging it by charging such a high price. I think it's an outrageous price, but I still MIGHT spend the money on one or two beers because I'm at the ball game!

People can drink responsibly, regardless of the price. And I'd hardly have a drink or two because "baseball told me to".

So, you're saying personal accountablity and knowing your own limitions...? I couldn't agree any more. No one is forcing you to do anything. No one has a gun by your head and says "Drink this" or "Smoke that".

Yachtzee
05-07-2007, 12:22 AM
What the heck are you talking about?

Wow, I've never been accused of being RFS before. I'm honored, but I'm not that old. I can remember the Carter Administration, but not the Magna Carta. ;)

peterose00
05-07-2007, 12:41 AM
The culture of alcohol abuse that existed among the St Louis organization is right there for everyone to see. Not counting the things we are not aware of, here are the things that we do know:

(1) LaRussa's DUI arrest in spring training (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(2) Full refrigerators of various Annheiser Busch products were wheeled into the Cardinal clubhouse for every game, including road games. (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(3) Hancock was involved in an accident on Thursday at 5:30 AM on a road that had only two establishments (the Oz Strip Club and a 24 hour liquor store). While police report that they did not administer an alcohol assessment and stated that Hancock appered to be in control of his faculties -- there was not an absolute assuance that alcohol was not involved in some way. (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(4) Hancock showed up seriously late for a gamethe next day -- a day game against the Reds. He said publically that he overslept on a new mattress. It has been widely reported that he told Dave Campbell that LaRussa was pissed at him because he showed up so hung over. So what was reported publically was vastly different than what was known to be ture privately (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(5) Nothing was done to Hancock for missing work -- LaRussa said he talked sternly to Hancock about this issue. He went on to say, "maybe I didn't do that as well as I should". No fines or suspensions. (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(6) Hancock spent three hours at Shannons drinking. He was obviously drunk. Now Shannons is located about two blocks from Busch Stadium in St Louis. It is frequented by numerous players and baseball people. Clearly they knew that Hancock was in there getting blitzed and no one did or said anything about it (see culture of alcohol abuse).

(7) If u were just some guy who was deciding to drink yourself into oblivion, would you choose to do that in a place where many people who worked at your same team and many others associated with the team would see it in plain view. The answer is that the only wayyouwould make that choice is if you knew it would not create a problem for you with anyone within that organization. (see culture of alcohol abuse)

(8) It has been widely reported that Hancock was driving to yet another bar and was to meet up with a number of other Cardinal players (Jim Edmnds amng them. This is at 12:30 AM -- with Hancock's blood alcohol level already at twice the legal limit in Missouri (see culture of alcohol abuse)

Yes, Hancock made very poor decisions -- but I have heard enough and seen enough. There is/was a culture of alcohol abuse that existed and possibly still exists that certainly didn't help -- ad if anythng, made it easy for Hancock to make such poor decisions so as to cost him his life.


This post should serve to put out there what is clear about everything that must be taken into a ccount about this tragic death. My only point remains that the culture of alcohol abuse that exists (in St Louis or anywhere else, sports, entertainment or business or anywhere) shold never be tolerated -- and doing too little and then having something like this happen is far worse than being overly cautious.

gonelong
05-07-2007, 12:45 AM
Wow, I've never been accused of being RFS before. I'm honored, but I'm not that old. I can remember the Carter Administration, but not the Magna Carta. ;)

I just love their digital encyclopedia.

GL

Always Red
05-07-2007, 08:35 AM
I don't agree with this at all. People will do what they want to do, regardless of who is preaching.

Personally, charging $7 for a beer does not seem to be encouraging drinking... IMHO, it's quite the opposite.... more like discouraging it by charging such a high price. I think it's an outrageous price, but I still MIGHT spend the money on one or two beers because I'm at the ball game!

People can drink responsibly, regardless of the price. And I'd hardly have a drink or two because "baseball told me to".

TB, I agree with you and I also will have a beer or two at the game. That statement was part of a larger post, and my point was that the Cardinals removing beer from the clubhouse is strictly a PR move, and perhaps one to limit their liability as well; it solves nothing. Baseball makes millions of dollars from beer sales and from beer advertisers. and there's nothing wrong with that, either, IMO.

If the Cardinals and baseball really thought there was a culture of alcohol that they wanted to do something about, that would be the logical first thing to do- get rid of beer in the stadium. I'm against that, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of just removing beer from the clubhouse. Because look around you at the ballpark- there are a lot more fans driving home drunk than there are players driving home drunk. There's no question about that.

I'm all about personal freedom, and personal responsibility.

TeamBoone
05-07-2007, 03:34 PM
I'm hoping that most groups of fans have a designated driver. I know I've met more than my share of rowdy people, and for the most part (if you talk to them at all), each group does have a designated driver, though I'm sure there are exceptions.

Always Red
05-07-2007, 03:39 PM
I'm hoping that most groups of fans have a designated driver. I know I've met more than my share of rowdy people, and for the most part (if you talk to them at all), each group does have a designated driver, though I'm sure there are exceptions.

I'm going tonight. Our plan? Get there early, sit in the warm spring sun, watch BP, have a few early brews, be done drinking by the 4th inning or so, and go home sober. Oh, and most importantly, I'm not driving home. I learned a long time ago to go to sleep sober!:D

Should be a beautiful night for baseball.