Tony LaRussa DUI arrest

[CubsLadyinSTL]

I apologize if this has already been posted but this was wrote by a great sports writer (who I worked with at ESPN radio in St. Louis) Bernie Miklasz. I wonder how that response would have went if it was Lou Piniella..........

 

I don't claim to know what happened last night, but I want to make a couple of observations:

 

* When I spoke to him on his cell phone last night (about 7:45 FLA time), he was sitting down for a meal with a few friends and looking forward to good food and conversation. This is what Tony does virtually every night during spring training following day games. He'll round up a coach or two, plus any visiting dignitaries who want to go, and he heads to one of his favorite spots, and has a nice long meal, talking baseball for several hours.

 

* La Russa from everything I know sticks to red wine. He savors it. Again, from what I have seen and know, he goes through a bottle very slowly. He isn't looking to get his drunk on. He's contained in public, reserved in public. Usually the wine is part of these long, leisurely dinners. Or, he'll have some wine after a game (reg season) while reading a book, to wind down from the competition.

 

* I'm not making excuses for the man, but I know he has very long days in FLA. He gets up very early, has to do all his advance work and supervision of any pertinent on-field work, and then there's the exhibition game. And then more meetings and/or baseball talk. Then he has dinner. I would assume -- again, with not knowing the details of the evening -- that fatigue was a factor. I think by a certain point of the evening, he's pretty wiped out.

 

* Baseball decisions or not -- we all disagree with him on things -- I think he's a solid guy who lives right, and who tries to do the right thing in his personal life. I'm sure he feels awful about this, for the embarrassment he may have caused his team, his bosses, and himself.

 

* I made a terrible mistake along these lines many years ago, so I know what it's like, and the feeling of shame is very intense. If others feel compelled to pass moral judgement and throw stones at him, they're free to do so. I won't do it, because I am not without sin. I don't think La Russa needs to be told that he did something wrong. He knows it. He'll beat himself up more than anyone else will.

 

--B

[mjohnson71]

Al least this will be a 30 second break on ESPN from their constant coverage of the Red Sox/Yankees/Mets axis of evil.

 

BTW: I served LaRussa a couple of times back in my waiting/bartending days. He always nurses a bottle of red wine when dining/drinking: usually leaving 1/3 or 1/4 of the bottle.

 

At least he doesn't rip through the Johnny Walker Blue like some managers I know.

[XZero771679666304]

For that reason, it's perfectly appropriate for people's level of outrage to be in proportion to the BAC reading, as well.

 

It's perfectly fine to be more outraged at a higher level. What's disgusting and ignorant is the dismissive attitude toward the light end. "That used to be legal." Nonsense like that is absurd.

"That used to be legal" is not absurd nonsense. It's a fact. DUI is a legal definition, and one that has changed over time.

 

By your absolute "DUI is DUI" logic, your reaction to the situation should change from whatever you'd label it now to basically no reaction at all if LaRussa had blown a 0.93 a couple of years ago instead of now.

 

There are very few things I believe should be absolute, but DUI laws are one of them.

 

The problem is that people try and turn drunk driving into a subjective thing: "I'm fine at .08," or other ways of trying to mitigate it. They have been lowering the limits for a reason, that they were too high. Just because a .93 wouldn't have garnered a reaction a few years ago doesn't make it remotely acceptable.

 

And the level of drunkenness should not dictate the punishment. While people at lower levels may not be as dangerous, they still pose a real threat. And someone who is at .09 should be able to exercise more judgment than someone at .20 and not get in the driver's seat. And someone at .08 is just as capable of killing people on the road as some one at .20.

 

If you drink and drive, you are definitively in the wrong.

[Chocolate Milk]

For that reason, it's perfectly appropriate for people's level of outrage to be in proportion to the BAC reading, as well.

 

It's perfectly fine to be more outraged at a higher level. What's disgusting and ignorant is the dismissive attitude toward the light end. "That used to be legal." Nonsense like that is absurd.

"That used to be legal" is not absurd nonsense. It's a fact. DUI is a legal definition, and one that has changed over time.

 

By your absolute "DUI is DUI" logic, your reaction to the situation should change from whatever you'd label it now to basically no reaction at all if LaRussa had blown a 0.93 a couple of years ago instead of now.

 

Who cares what he blew? He obviously drank enough to pass out at a stoplight in his running car. What if is foot slipped off the break and his car rolled into oncoming traffic?

 

I don't see why we should have to temper our outrage because he BAC wasn't off the charts. The end result still could have been deadly and that's the issue here.

[The Voice of Reason]

Maybe the Courts will force Tony to lecture the public on the evils and destruction caused by drunk drivers like himself in place of his current PETA lectures.

 

The fact that he didn't hurt someone is pure luck and irrelevant.

 

It's the difference between a misdemeanor DUI charge and manslaughter. If that's irrelevant to you, I don't know what else to say.

 

It's a fact that drunk drivers at Tony's level (.93) kill people all the time. Just because an innocent person didn't get in his way and get injured or killed is pure luck.

 

If that's irrelevant to you, I don't know what else to say.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Bernie Miklasz is a bad writer. He takes his job way too seriously.

[Laura]

Its funny but I dont remember there being that much outcry last year on this board when the Cubs 3rd base coach got a DUI.

 

I also don't recall Chicago sports writers blathering on about how embarrassment should be the worst punishment for the drunk driver or posting long messageboard excuses for his behavior (see above).

 

Some posters here complain that Chicago media is too critical of the Cubs -- which I don't agree with at all -- but seeing the opposite, where St. Louis reporters seem to be BFFs with the organization doesn't seem to be an improvement.

 

BTW, Speier did enter rehab and missed several games -- perhaps even a months worth? Not sure on that -- and is no longer employed with the team.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Its funny but I dont remember there being that much outcry last year on this board when the Cubs 3rd base coach got a DUI.

 

Well, it was just as bad for him and I was disgusted with him. To me, it doesn't matter whom it is, driving while under the influence is not cool.

 

I can't believe some of the posters in this thread. So what if his BAC wasn't that high? He obviously still shouldn't have been driving - he was asleep while his car wasn't at park. He obviously couldn't handle as much alcohol as he did consume. There's a reason the BAC cut-off levels are as low as they are.

 

But I'm glad you all can handle your booze so well. :roll:

[ltb]

i'm pretty disgusted by a lot of the responses in this thread.

 

"oh, it was only .093, he wasn't going to kill anyone"

 

"it's ok he didn't hurt anybody"

 

just because nothing happened doesn't mean the potential wasn't there.

[CubinNY]

Shouldn't this go in Rivals or Social (no pun intendend).

 

I couldn't care less about Tipsy Tony.

[Faceman]

 

It's a fact that drunk drivers at Tony's level (.93) kill people all the time. Just because an innocent person didn't get in his way and get injured or killed is pure luck.

 

If that's irrelevant to you, I don't know what else to say.

 

It's a fact that sober drivers kill people all the time. Not saying that driving impaired is good, but you could say it's luck anytime you step foot in a car and don't get in an accident. You can't pin all those accidents on the alcohol.

 

Again, not excusing LaRussa. All DUI's are not equal.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

It's a fact that drunk drivers at Tony's level (.93) kill people all the time. Just because an innocent person didn't get in his way and get injured or killed is pure luck.

 

If that's irrelevant to you, I don't know what else to say.

 

It's a fact that sober drivers kill people all the time. Not saying that driving impaired is good, but you could say it's luck anytime you step foot in a car and don't get in an accident. You can't pin all those accidents on the alcohol.

 

Again, not excusing LaRussa. All DUI's are not equal.

 

You have got to be kidding me.

[CubsLadyinSTL]

There are sports writers and analysts who love Tony in St. Louis and there are those who are not so fond (basically what you find in every city with a professional team who has lost more than one game). I think it will be interesting here to see who massacres him for this and those that make excuses (we already know one for that list). Knowing Bernie personally, I have to say I am a bit surprised by his post. On the other hand I am also well aware of two other radio personalities that strongly disagree with Bernie but dont have a column or a newspaper writing contract to voice their opinions.

 

When it comes down to it. Look at the facts. Tony over legal limit--FACT (.08 is the legal limit RIGHT NOW). Tony asleep with the car on AND his foot on the brake (most states you only need to have your keys in the ignition to get a DUI)--FACT. Tony arrested for DUI--FACT. I feel for Tony in the sense that if he was in St. Louis he probably would have drove home with no DUI. (See any of three of Leonard Little's DWI offenses--not even close to the caliber of well known as Tony, he plays for the Rams). I say that because Leonard Little hit a car while driving drunk and killed a mother of 2. No jail time and missed two games. WOW.

Edited March 22, 2007 by CubsLadyinSTL

[Soriano12]

I gargled scope and got a .092 once.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I gargled scope and got a .092 once.

 

Congrats, you must be one tough dude!

[Soriano12]

I gargled scope and got a .092 once.

 

Congrats, you must be one tough dude!

 

Don't be fooled by my avatar, I'm quite the opposite.

[ToupeeOnFire]

Undercover officers saw La Russa's SUV sitting partially in an intersection around midnight and not moving despite two green lights, police said. Officers knocked on the window and La Russa did not initially respond.

The SUV was in drive and running, with La Russa's foot on the brake, police said. When he woke up, the officers asked him to get out of the SUV. La Russa was cooperative during his arrest, police said.

 

He was asleep at an intersection with his foot on the brake. Despite the relatively low BAC content, things could have turned out a lot worse.

[davearm]

For that reason, it's perfectly appropriate for people's level of outrage to be in proportion to the BAC reading, as well.

 

It's perfectly fine to be more outraged at a higher level. What's disgusting and ignorant is the dismissive attitude toward the light end. "That used to be legal." Nonsense like that is absurd.

"That used to be legal" is not absurd nonsense. It's a fact. DUI is a legal definition, and one that has changed over time.

 

By your absolute "DUI is DUI" logic, your reaction to the situation should change from whatever you'd label it now to basically no reaction at all if LaRussa had blown a 0.93 a couple of years ago instead of now.

 

There are very few things I believe should be absolute, but DUI laws are one of them.

 

The problem is that people try and turn drunk driving into a subjective thing: "I'm fine at .08," or other ways of trying to mitigate it. They have been lowering the limits for a reason, that they were too high. Just because a .93 wouldn't have garnered a reaction a few years ago doesn't make it remotely acceptable.

 

And the level of drunkenness should not dictate the punishment. While people at lower levels may not be as dangerous, they still pose a real threat. And someone who is at .09 should be able to exercise more judgment than someone at .20 and not get in the driver's seat. And someone at .08 is just as capable of killing people on the road as some one at .20.

 

If you drink and drive, you are definitively in the wrong.

This is running pretty far afield of anything baseball related, but I have to disagree with you strongly here.

 

DUI is not, and should not, be treated as an absolute. Driving after one drink is different than driving after 6, which is different than driving after 16. Each step of the way, you increase the danger to yourself and everyone around you.

 

Anyone is capable of killing people on the road, even stone cold sober ones. The issue is that the sober ones are less likely to do so than the borderline drunk ones, and the borderline drunk ones are less likely to do so than the stumbling drunk ones.

 

And some sort of graduated punitive system should reflect these realities. A 0.093 should be punished differently than a 0.193.

 

None of this is to excuse what LaRussa allegedly did last night. He was absolutely in the wrong. But a relevant question to ask is, how far in the wrong was he? Or more specifically, how big of a risk did he pose out on the road last night?

 

I'm not sure why the "DUI is DUI" crowd is either unable or unwilling to consider this question.

Edited March 22, 2007 by davearm

[Faceman]

 

It's a fact that drunk drivers at Tony's level (.93) kill people all the time. Just because an innocent person didn't get in his way and get injured or killed is pure luck.

 

If that's irrelevant to you, I don't know what else to say.

 

It's a fact that sober drivers kill people all the time. Not saying that driving impaired is good, but you could say it's luck anytime you step foot in a car and don't get in an accident. You can't pin all those accidents on the alcohol.

 

Again, not excusing LaRussa. All DUI's are not equal.

 

You have got to be kidding me.

 

Do you think they set the speed limit at 65 because 66 is really dangerous? Or do you think they build leeway knowing people will press the issue.

 

I am not defending driving under the influence. But under the influence starts with the first drink. You must be for zero-tolerance?

[ToupeeOnFire]

I would not be shocked to learn that he mixed alcohol with medication, legal or otherwise. It seems very odd that he would pass out in his car at 12 AM with just a .093 blood alcohol level.

[Allroy]

Man, this is just too good. The new nickname possiblities are endless.

 

LaBooza

LaSnooza

 

Couldn't have happened to a better guy. I'm just happy no one was hurt.

[Chocolate Milk]

Man, this is just too good. The new nickname possiblities are endless.

 

LaBooza

LaSnooza

 

Couldn't have happened to a better guy. I'm just happy no one was hurt.

 

I'm looking forward to saying, "Looks like Tony's asleep at the wheel!" during Cubs v. Cardinals games.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Man, this is just too good. The new nickname possiblities are endless.

 

LaBooza

LaSnooza

 

Couldn't have happened to a better guy. I'm just happy no one was hurt.

 

I'm looking forward to saying, "Looks like Tony's asleep at the wheel!" during Cubs v. Cardinals games.

 

In response, he's going to change pitchers 5 times in an inning instead of 3 just to piss you off.

[Allroy]

I know its wrong, but I can't help it. You know Card's fans wouldn't pull any punches of Piniella got popped. Here are a couple more that came to me.

 

LushRussa

TUI

[CubinNY]

I know its wrong, but I can't help it. You know Card's fans wouldn't pull any punches of Piniella got popped. Here are a couple more that came to me.

 

LushRussa

TUI

 

I perviously used "Tipsy Tony" in this thread.

 

Falling asleep at the wheel and drinking are very bad things.

 

Hasn't he had problems with drinking in the past?