11/05/24
April 29, 2007
St. Louis Cardinals Reliever, Josh Hancock, Dies in Car Crash.: Hancock's Ford Explorer slammed into the rear of a tow truck that was parked in the far left westbound lane of I-40 shortly after 12:30 a.m. Tonight's game against the Cubs will be postponed. This follows Hancock giving his teammates a scare on Thursday afternoon by showing up late for a Thursday afternoon tilt. With righthander Darryl Kile dying before a game in Chicago five years ago, the Cardinals don't take it lightly when a player doesn't show up at the park on time.
.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:42 AM on April 29, 2007
.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:56 PM on April 29, 2007
.
posted by rocketman at 01:03 PM on April 29, 2007
.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 01:14 PM on April 29, 2007
.
posted by t money at 02:11 PM on April 29, 2007
.
posted by Howard_T at 02:12 PM on April 29, 2007
.
posted by jojomfd1 at 04:51 PM on April 29, 2007
.
posted by bavarianmotorworker at 05:14 PM on April 29, 2007
It's a sad day in Cardinal land. My thoughts and prayers are with his mom, dad, brother and sister.
posted by budman13 at 06:27 PM on April 29, 2007
Believe this...Cardinal nation is crying. Don't know what really happened, I only know that a decent young man has been cheated out of a future. Peace, Josh Hancock.....peace.
posted by wolfdad at 08:04 PM on April 29, 2007
My prayers also to his family, the team, and all who knew him. Twice in five years. Life is a gift not meant to be ripped away so harshly.
posted by boredom_08 at 09:11 PM on April 29, 2007
Not again! Events like this never get any easier. My condolences to the Hancock family.
posted by longgreenline at 12:49 AM on April 30, 2007
.
posted by wingnut4life at 04:09 AM on April 30, 2007
.
posted by texasred at 07:27 AM on April 30, 2007
The irony just doesnt make sense,two great young athletes and men in five years.My prayers and sympathies are with the Hancock family and the Cardinal organization and its' fans.God Bless.
posted by zane71 at 08:16 AM on April 30, 2007
I believe that I speak for all Cardinals fans when I say that we appreciate your kind comments.
posted by whitedog65 at 08:46 AM on April 30, 2007
I may not be a baseball fan, but it even rips me up when a tragedy like this happens. My thought and prayers are with his friends and family.
posted by TelamarketersBeware at 09:28 AM on April 30, 2007
The death of a young person is always horrible. Words can't begin to express my feelings.
posted by dyams at 09:46 AM on April 30, 2007
.
posted by tommybiden at 11:16 AM on April 30, 2007
.
posted by BornIcon at 11:26 AM on April 30, 2007
.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 12:24 PM on April 30, 2007
.
posted by Drood at 12:51 PM on April 30, 2007
.
posted by gators at 12:56 PM on April 30, 2007
.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:03 PM on April 30, 2007
.
posted by GoBirds at 01:13 PM on April 30, 2007
Will Leitch over at Deadspin wrote what I think is an outstanding tribute to Hancock. It discusses the sports fans' difficulty in emotionally reconciling the loss of someone who, having toiled as a relatively unknown and seemingly unimportant cog, suddenly has meaning to us as we reflect on how we feel about the more human part of the game.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 03:37 PM on April 30, 2007
Well, it seems that evidence is mounting that Hancock was driving home drunk when he got into the accident that killed him. As well, he seems to have had another accident while out late (5:30am) only a couple of days earlier. The first link I posted had the following quote: "Vince says that he overheard Hancock telling Campbell that he missed the beginning of Thursday's day game – which had a scheduled first pitch of 12:10 p.m. – because “he had spent all night drinking” on Wednesday. So he was driving home drunk on Thursday morning, got into an accident, lied about it to his team, joked about it later that week, then drove home AGAIN while drunk, got into ANOTHER accident, and got himself killed. You'll pardon me if I don't express my condolences.
posted by grum@work at 11:20 PM on April 30, 2007
You'll pardon me if I don't express my condolences. Grum, you can't excuse one athlete and accuse another without sufficient evidence. From your second link: Both officers on the scene said he did not appear to be impaired whatsoever. Of course, he was shook up over the accident, but once he was here and settled down, he was just a friendly, really nice guy. Your first link has a couple, who refuse to give their full names, giving one account of what Hancock did. In my opinion, I don't feel that you can reach judgment on Hancock at this point, knowing how much evidence has been necessary for you to fail to find Bonds (or any other baseball player) guilty of whatever they have been charged with. You either hold out for concrete evidence, or you don't.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 12:13 AM on May 01, 2007
He gets into a car crash at 5:30am, the morning before a 1pm game, and I'm to assume he wasn't out drinking during that time? Fair enough. That might be a leap of logic. But how about the second crash? From another link: 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. Can you think of any other reason why a bar would offer to call a patron a cab other than because he's consumed a lot of alcohol and they suspect he might not be able to drive and they are worried about getting sued if he does crash while drunk driving? You either hold out for concrete evidence, or you don't. I think you're right to call me out on that.
posted by grum@work at 12:45 AM on May 01, 2007
It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO. It is a tragedy for someone to die in such a senseless and preventable manner. It is also a time when media outlets can remind us all that Driving While Tired is as dangerous Driving Under the Influence. According to safety.com, "The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 100,000 of reported crashes occur as a result of drowsiness, and considers sleep deprived drivers a hazard equal in severity to drunk drivers. Studies show that staying awake for 18 hours and driving produces the same effect as being legally drunk behind the wheel."
posted by geekyguy at 02:13 AM on May 01, 2007
You either hold out for concrete evidence, or you don't. Hmm, I know I've heard this some where.
posted by Bishop at 02:25 AM on May 01, 2007
Thanks for making it unclear who was operating in poorest taste here.
posted by yerfatma at 05:58 AM on May 01, 2007
Can you think of any other reason why a bar would offer to call a patron a cab If they knew his car was out of service from the previous accident, and didn't know he had a rental or how he was getting around? Whatever. I'm not getting into any further argument about this. I think publicly stating your intentions to withhold condolences from the survivors would be weird even if Hancock turned out to be a serial killer.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 09:57 AM on May 01, 2007
If they knew his car was out of service from the previous accident, and didn't know he had a rental or how he was getting around? That's grasping at straws and you know it. He got to the restaurant in some way, so wouldn't they assume he'd leave in the same manner? Since the most common method of arrival/departure is by personal automobile, why offer him a cab unless they felt he couldn't handle driving on his own? Your version has them making a pretty big leap of logic, especially considering the previous accident didn't become public until after he died from the second one. I'm not getting into any further argument about this. I think publicly stating your intentions to withhold condolences from the survivors would be weird even if Hancock turned out to be a serial killer. Maybe "condolences" is the wrong word to use there. I'm sorry that his family lost someone they love. However, I'm not shedding an internet tear for the man himself if he was driving drunk.
posted by grum@work at 11:21 AM on May 01, 2007
I nominate this for "Most disgusting SpoFi conversation".
posted by SummersEve at 11:43 AM on May 01, 2007
However, I'm not shedding an internet tear for the man himself if he was driving drunk Neither would I if in fact he was driving while intoxicated. Until those facts are made public, all there is to know is that this young man passed away in a horrific car accident. What a shame. I nominate this for "Most disgusting SpoFi conversation". Ditto
posted by BornIcon at 11:47 AM on May 01, 2007
He got to the restaurant in some way, so wouldn't they assume he'd leave in the same manner? Maybe they supposed that he got there by cab, so they offered to get him a cab to return in. The article doesn't give any quotes or context regarding the conversation about the cab, it just says that it was offered and "declined." Not "refused," just "declined." especially considering the previous accident didn't become public until after he died from the second one. The fact that it wasn't public doesn't mean that the daughter of a guy who works for the Cardinals organization didn't know about. I know I said I wasn't going to argue this anymore, but I am stunned, grum, that you continue to draw these firm conclusions based on pretty circumstantial evidence. I have been totally in your boat during your defenses of other athletes, and your approach here seems totally out of character. I know that vehicle safety is a hot button for you, as it is and should be for many people, but can we wait for the toxicology report before we brand this poor guy? On edit: I nominate this for "Most disgusting SpoFi conversation". I've seen worse. Much worse.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:51 AM on May 01, 2007
Can you think of any other reason why a bar would offer to call a patron a cab other than because he's consumed a lot of alcohol and they suspect he might not be able to drive and they are worried about getting sued if he does crash while drunk driving? Because the jerk that gave me a ride there decided he was going to take that hot red-head home instead of me (not that I blame him, she was really hot).
posted by MrFrisby at 01:24 PM on May 01, 2007
I'm sorry that his family lost someone they love. However, I'm not shedding an internet tear for the man himself if he was driving drunk. That kind of principled stand is just as weird to me as the shedding of Internet tears. I think most people get what you're driving at, but it's the kind of thing best left in park.
posted by yerfatma at 01:30 PM on May 01, 2007
can we wait for the toxicology report before we brand this poor guy? I don't know because that kind of thing seems to happen on almost every single death thread. If someone was out too late, then he was asking for trouble. If someone is shot, then he must have been with thugs. If someone dies too young, maybe it is steroids. At least in this particular case, there is some evidence to indicate that the athlete's own actions may have caused his death. Normally, we have rampant speculation without any evidence whatsoever.
posted by bperk at 01:50 PM on May 01, 2007
Normally, we have rampant speculation without any evidence whatsoever. I am deliberately holding grum to a higher standard because he is so often one of the strong voices of reason in those other threads you mention, and because he has demonstrated a pattern of holding himself to that standard. Maybe that is unfair. I would like the unfairness of my life to be that complimentary. I have no issue with expressing rage at impaired drivers where it is warranted.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 02:04 PM on May 01, 2007
Normally, we have rampant speculation without any evidence whatsoever. I think this is true from time to time. However, I also think that you shouldn't be afraid to make a leap of deductive reasoning every once in a while. We're not talking about the Information Act, here. You - the consumer - are going to get fed a load of pablum passed through the hands of a publicist, agent, and team officials. I think there are times when you can safely suggest you're not buying it and remain accurate.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:12 PM on May 01, 2007
So can we safely assume that Hancock had some drinks?
posted by bperk at 02:21 PM on May 01, 2007
I am deliberately holding grum to a higher standard because he is so often one of the strong voices of reason in those other threads you mention, and because he has demonstrated a pattern of holding himself to that standard. Maybe that is unfair. I would like the unfairness of my life to be that complimentary. I'm going to attribute my current string of "dickishness" (not just in this thread, but the Mets Steroid one too) to a head cold that just won't go away, the resulting lack of sleep, and recent rainy weather ruining any chance of enjoying the warm temperatures. I don't normally go into threads like these ones and just start kicking puppies and punching nuns, but when I read those other articles and made the (possibly unfounded, but strongly circumstantial) assumption he was driving drunk (twice!?), it really flipped the "anger" switch in my head. If it turns out that the toxicology report (due in 2-3 weeks...this ain't television CSI, I guess) says he was clean and sober, then I'll cop to being wrong. If it turns out he was drunk, then I'll probably just shrug my shoulders and continue on with my day. I'm not apologizing for what I'm saying, I'm just explaining why it may seem out of character for me.
posted by grum@work at 03:01 PM on May 01, 2007
Well, I'm going to attribute my current string of "dickishness" to being a dick.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 03:40 PM on May 01, 2007
I don't normally go into threads like these ones and just start kicking puppies and punching nuns, but when I read those other articles and made the (possibly unfounded, but strongly circumstantial) assumption he was driving drunk (twice!?), it really flipped the "anger" switch in my head. grum, what I read about the first article made it sound like the other driver hit him. Not so? As for the second one...hey, I have a friend who's got permanent damage from an accident in which he ran into a vehicle that had been abandoned in the left lane. Sober as a judge, he was. If you ever come along and find yourself behind a vehicle that's just stopped -- no weaving, not swerving, no brake lights, no flashers -- well, it's one of those road situations where things are enough like normal that your reactions are slow. So I too will wait for the toxicology report, but not be surprised if he comes up clean.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:21 PM on May 01, 2007
Sportsfilter: rampant speculation without any evidence whatsoever A bit long for a tagline, maybe, but I like it very much.
posted by qbert72 at 04:56 PM on May 01, 2007
OK I am from St Louis and a huge Cardinals fan. I am disgusted at the amount of insensitive comments on this man. There is NO evidence at this time that he was drunk as a matter of fact the person he was with at Mike Shannons told USA Today that he didn't even have the conversation with him about thursdays game, and that he didn't appear at all drunk. Have you ever driven on Highway 40 in that area it's dark and if there is a car slammed into the median and a tow truck it's hard to see all that. How do we know he wasn't tired and maybe fell asleep at the wheel? At this point there is no evidence of anything that he did wrong, and if you are taking the word of someone who refuses to show his face how trust worthy do you believe he is?? That man wants his time in the spotlight, sorry but if it was me I would not hide who I am unless I am blowing it all out of my ass! If it comes out that he was drinking then let that be an example to kids as to what can happen when you drink and drive. But let the man rest.
posted by MindyK at 05:14 PM on May 01, 2007
Wait, which man is showing his face or not showing his face? I'm so confused. You started talking about different men and used all pronouns and then you refused to blow something out of your ass.
posted by jerseygirl at 06:05 PM on May 01, 2007
Paul Daugherty, a writer for the Cincinnati Enquirer, quotes an unnamed source that Hancock was drinking the night of the accident.
"He had a mixed drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other," said a patron at Mike Shannon’s Steaks and Seafood. "My wife's comment was, 'He can barely put a sentence together.'"Daugherty says that baseball's code of silence contributed to Hancock's demise. If he was driving drunk, it's fortunate no one else was killed.
posted by rcade at 09:02 AM on May 02, 2007
It's sad that people remember all these telling details after the fact, yet can't seem to take any kind of preventive action when it might have helped.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:14 AM on May 02, 2007
It's sad that people remember all these telling details after the fact, yet can't seem to take any kind of preventive action when it might have helped. Well, one of the articles I linked to says that the owner of the bar offered to order a cab for Hancock on the night he died, but he refused it. You can only do so much short of forcible confinement...
posted by grum@work at 12:02 PM on May 02, 2007
Have you ever driven on Highway 40 in that area it's dark and if there is a car slammed into the median and a tow truck it's hard to see all that. How about if the vehicle has big, bright flashing lights? What if it's not so dark and twisty that the occupant in the tow truck can see you coming from far enough away that he has time to sound his horn to warn you? At this point there is no evidence of anything that he did wrong, Except that the slammed into a stopped vehicle. That's wrong. Even if he survived and was sober, he'd be charged with a driving offence.
posted by grum@work at 12:07 PM on May 02, 2007
Please stop arguing that drunk driving is wrong. We get it. It's not just some drunk that died, it's someone's son, someone's friend, etc. While that may not excuse what they did, it should be enough to make you stop and ask what value you're adding.
posted by yerfatma at 01:37 PM on May 02, 2007
People killed by drunk drivers are also someone's son, someone's friend, yadda yadda. I don't think the emotional response of people who hate drunk driving is any less valid than people who want to remember this guy for better things.
posted by rcade at 02:53 PM on May 02, 2007
I don't think the emotional response of people who hate drunk driving is any less valid than people who want to remember this guy for better things. It is, however, perhaps a wee tad misplaced when speaking of a specific situation in which it is yet to be established that there was a drunk driver. Don't you think? (or maybe you just want to admit that "emotional response" and "valid" don't even belong in the same sentence, and move on)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:09 PM on May 02, 2007
When somebody dies ridiculously young, I think it's a pretty natural response to want to have a reason to be angry at the person. Somebody in the other athlete-dies-too-early thread said something along the lines of "when somebody this young dies, I always hope it's drugs because it somehow makes me feel better." Tragedy is somehow intellectually less tragic when it's somebody's own stupid fault. It certainly feels better to rage at a person than at the injustices of the universe in the abstract. I don't think grum should have stepped so strongly with his emotional response -- it should have at least been presented as a more conditional response, which he did eventually get to -- but I also don't think his response is as inhumanely ugly as some seem to have chosen to read it.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 03:40 PM on May 02, 2007
Grum didn't make his response until he found links that indicate that Hancock was drinking at the restaurant. There is always speculation in these threads. If we wait for a final ruling, there will never be any discussion on SpoFi about it at all. No one is going to post a new Lidle thread now that the NTSB report has finally been issued. No one is going to post a Hancock really was drinking and driving thread. I'm a little surprised that grum has been given such a hard time given that the evidentiary support he has and the egregious speculation that goes on around here in some threads.
posted by bperk at 03:46 PM on May 02, 2007
It is, however, perhaps a wee tad misplaced when speaking of a specific situation in which it is yet to be established that there was a drunk driver. Don't you think? To be honest, I think I have presented more evidence (correct or otherwise) that Josh Hancock was driving drunk than has been presented that Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa used PED during the 1998 home run chase.
posted by grum@work at 04:17 PM on May 02, 2007
I don't think the emotional response of people who hate drunk driving is any less valid than people who want to remember this guy for better things. And I don't think random folks on the Internet should have opinions on their deaths either. I'm not saying people don't have a right to their opinion, there's just something unfeeling and crass about the need to broadcast it right after the death.
posted by yerfatma at 04:18 PM on May 02, 2007
And I don't think random folks on the Internet should have opinions on their deaths either. What should random folks on the internet have opinions on? The guilt/innocence of Barry Bonds in regards to steroid use? Terrell Owens locker room behaviour? Racism in America? The legal issues of Pacman Jones? How well a fifteen year old writes? Please tell me what I, as a random folk on the internet, can have an opinion on. I'm not saying people don't have a right to their opinion....... That's exactly what you are saying.
posted by ampto11 at 04:41 PM on May 02, 2007
When somebody dies ridiculously young, I think it's a pretty natural response to want to have a reason to be angry at the person. there's just something unfeeling and crass about the need to broadcast it right after the death. Crafty, Fatty, you two seem to have hit the middle ground. To me, it does not matter what happened when a young person dies. Was the person driving drunk? So what, he's just as dead. Were drugs involved? It doesn't matter. The loss is just as great. What I'm trying to say is that we should just grieve for the loss, and try to make some sense of it. Trying to place blame on the deceased is futile. De mortibus nisi nil bonum.
posted by Howard_T at 05:29 PM on May 02, 2007
I'm surprised the respect for the dead card's being played here. When Reggie White died, we caught some grief here for discussing the possible causes. There's always somebody, when a prominent figure's death is discussed on a site like this, who thinks we should all speak in hushed and reverential tones between our sobs and then file out with our snotrags full. No offense intended to anybody, but I feel no obligation to pretend this is a memorial service.
posted by rcade at 06:42 PM on May 02, 2007
Please tell me what I, as a random folk on the internet, can have an opinion on. You know what you can have an opinion on? Something that if Josh Hancock's mother or the mother of any other person who died could come across it and not feel worse for having seen it. That's what. Sports. My personal rule is I'd try to avoid saying anything I wouldn't want to say in front of anyone. Doesn't have to be your rule, but that's what I was trying to get across. I'm not doing a good job expressing what I mean, so here's it without the nicety: have a little class. on preview: No offense intended to anybody, but I feel no obligation to pretend this is a memorial service. Y'know, you're absolutely right and I'm being a hypocrite here. I guess it's because it's not some big star and by all accounts1 he was a heck of a nice person2 that I feel bad for the people around him. 1. In the Boston media, anyway. Well, and at deadspin of all places. That kind of made me wistful 2. Which is obviously not true, he was a bad, terrible, awful person because he drove drunk, which is the kind of poor decision none of us have ever made and since he died doing that and because ESPN gives a shit about him for this infinitesimally small slice of time he will be forever remembered as a drunk driver and not as a boy, man, baseball player, 3-dimensional person, etc. I realize that kind of maudlin shit has no place on the "Git yer fuckin' helmet" Wild West of the Internets where every man is the baddest, purest, straightest-shootin' sumbitch around, but I guess I'm not up for that and I guess I wouldn't want to be remembered in such a Möbius strip stand-in of my life.
posted by yerfatma at 06:48 PM on May 02, 2007
Funny enough, I agree a bit. I caught shit on the Lenny Bias thread for being a bit, well, jerky. But it feels a little different when the lesser lights die. The guys that rarely graced the pages of the papers, that filled in the parts of the team around the stars. I felt I could relate to these guys a little more. They weren't so different. Not famous despite being in such a select group. Their big moments were a little smaller. So I think it sucks that Josh Hancock died. Len Bias and Reggie White, it sucks that they died too, but they had impact. They were figures. Large lives. They get myths and anniversaries. In the near future Josh Hancock will not be remembered by most. By some as a footnote, and fondly and sadly by those who loved him. It's a little hypocritical and a lot revealing, but I like it. I do. It's like a Leonard Cohen song. It has a tragic beauty.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:26 PM on May 02, 2007
I'm surprised the respect for the dead card's being played here. Eh. What you're calling "the respect for the dead card" is an extreme form of faux reverence. You're acting as if that's what's behind any suggestion that it would be in better taste to refrain from making the sure-as-shit-musta-been-drunk judgment. You're, well...wrong.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:34 PM on May 02, 2007
You know what you can have an opinion on? Something that if Josh Hancock's mother or the mother of any other person who died could come across it and not feel worse for having seen it. That's what. Sports. My personal rule is I'd try to avoid saying anything I wouldn't want to say in front of anyone. Doesn't have to be your rule, but that's what I was trying to get across. I'm not doing a good job expressing what I mean, so here's it without the nicety: have a little class. I understand what you are saying yerfatma, just didn't care for the way it was expressed on your earlier comment. We all come on here to give our personal opinion on a wide variety of topics, some even sports related, everyday. To suggest that we refrain from posting an opinion simply because the topic is death and the nature of that opinion varies from the majority does not seem right to me. The majority of the initial comments to the thread were of the sorrowful nature. It was later, after the media reported the accident earlier in the week and speculation about Hancock's actions the day of the accident, where the comments began to vary in sentiment. I actually agree with your take though, in that I would not be so quick to point out the flaws in character of someone who just lost their life in such dramatic fashion. But I would not object to others voicing their opinion about the situation, regardless of who may be reading the comments. Especially in a forum such as this one. That's why SpoFi exists and why I come here most everyday to read the comments.
posted by ampto11 at 11:27 PM on May 02, 2007
But I would not object to others voicing their opinion about the situation, regardless of who may be reading the comments. Especially in a forum such as this one. Exactly, this is a forum and not the memorial service. Grum is not the person telling reporters that "He had a mixed drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other," Grum added the report to the discussion and gave his reaction to it. There was no discussion before that, it was all just a string of periods.
posted by MrFrisby at 11:38 PM on May 02, 2007
I've never expressed certainty Hancock was drunk, LBB. I quoted a reporter who quoted an unnamed source who said he was drinking. I have no idea if the source is a good one. Maybe I went overboard talking about emotionally valid responses, since that's a concept so Oprah it gives me the willies and I was rightfully ridiculed for it. All I was trying to express was that grief over this guy's untimely death is not all that different than grief over people killed by drunk drivers, so I'm not surprised to see them clash here. People are all over the map when reminded of mortality. I don't fault Yerfatma for taking this one more personally than he took Reggie White's demise. I took Roger Ebert's health problems -- made visual recently by his brave decision to go public with them -- like a gut punch. Looking for info on Hancock, I found this Alabama sports columnist who responds with an unexpectedly philosophical rumination on existence.
posted by rcade at 07:45 AM on May 03, 2007
All I was trying to express was that grief over this guy's untimely death is not all that different than grief over people killed by drunk drivers, so I'm not surprised to see them clash here. I think that the clash comes from the notion that the two griefs are like matter and antimatter, and that they simply can't coexist. One must annihilate the other. I think there's a substantial blame impulse when almost any death occurs -- accidental, death by illness, whatever. It is not something I've felt myself, but it seems to be a very common phenomenon. It's as if, could we but establish who's to blame, we could then move on to eliminating death. That's not to argue against preventing preventable death, whether with policy or technology -- it's just my take on where I think the clash comes from. (edit: what I'm talking about is the same impulse Robinson is talking about in his column: "But death generally pulls us up short. It's a jolt, especially when it's sudden, because, rather than obsess about the fact that we all are going to die, we push forward as if we aren't. And it's a shock to get that reality check." Good link.)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:55 AM on May 03, 2007
Something that if Josh Hancock's mother or the mother of any other person who died could come across it and not feel worse for having seen it. That's what. Sports. My personal rule is I'd try to avoid saying anything I wouldn't want to say in front of anyone. I don't think I've said anything that I would have a problem saying in front of Josh Hancock's mother, if she asked for my comment. I'm sorry that she lost a son, but if he was drinking and driving, then he's a bad person for doing so.
posted by grum@work at 11:52 AM on May 03, 2007
I'm sorry that she lost a son, but if he was drinking and driving, then he's a bad person for doing so. I'd have a problem saying that in front of his mother. The timing is all wrong, and besides, I think there are few if any situations in which the conjunction "but" should follow the words "I'm sorry", particularly when you're talking about someone's death. The two things aren't connected, and connecting them sullies the sentiment.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:03 PM on May 03, 2007
Put yourself in his mother or fathers position for 5 seconds. If you lost your son whether he was drinking or not and someone said that to you wouldn't you want to punch them in the face. I know I would. My cousin was killed in a car accident by his own stupidity but he wasn't drinking and my family knows that heartache to lose someone so young. And even though it was his fault if someone walked up to us even now and said well if he wasn't being stupid he would still be alive, that would be hurtful almost to the point of hateful. People grieving place there own blame, my dad died of cancer which nobody can control and I blamed him. So in grieving they are already mad at him why make it worse and grind that knife even more by slandering the man. Let him rest and let his family grieve in there way.
posted by MindyK at 12:44 PM on May 03, 2007
I'm sorry that she lost a son, but if he was drinking and driving, then he's a bad person for doing so. Don't forget to kick his grandmother on your way out. I hear during his visits as a baby she repeatedly failed to put childproof protectors over her electrical sockets.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 01:13 PM on May 03, 2007
Put yourself in his mother or fathers position for 5 seconds. So are we supposed to talk about all sports figures as if their parents might be reading or just the dead ones? I have to say that I don't think Barry Bonds's mother will be at all pleased by the discussion around here.
posted by bperk at 01:21 PM on May 03, 2007
Let him rest and let his family grieve in there way. Nothing being said here should in anyway prevent his family from grieving. It's not as if we are going to the funeral holding signs saying Hancock was a drunk. We are merely giving our opinions on the story and how it makes us feel. And even though it was his fault if someone walked up to us even now and said well if he wasn't being stupid he would still be alive, that would be hurtful almost to the point of hateful. Yet it would also be an accurate assessment. I am not trying to be hurtful towards you MindyK, not at all. Your point of view is shaped by past experiences and is certainly justified. I too have lost young family members, one of which was murdered at age 18, but I know that personal choices we make have a direct impact on our lives and our families. I would not want to listen to someone call out my brother-in-law for choosing the lifestyle which led to his being killed, but at the same time if his life was being discussed on a public forum such as this one, I should expect some to be of that opinion.
posted by ampto11 at 01:25 PM on May 03, 2007
So are we supposed to talk about all sports figures as if their parents might be reading or just the dead ones? Well, according to yerfatma and Weedy, the fact that he was not a star also helps. So Barry's got 2 strikes against him: living, a star. I'll let Bishop bring up the third strike.
posted by qbert72 at 03:44 PM on May 03, 2007
I would laugh at Qbert's comment, but it would be like laughing at somebody's funeral.
posted by rcade at 04:00 PM on May 03, 2007
Actually, what would you say we move the general "What can we say or not say when someone dies?" discussion to the Locker Room? My condolences to Hancock's friends and relatives.
posted by qbert72 at 04:02 PM on May 03, 2007
[Comment deleted from this discussion and moved to Lockerroom.]
posted by grum@work at 04:05 PM on May 03, 2007
I just knew it would turn out he was drunk. Fuck! I didn't want to suggest it right after he died but in conjunction with the other story about him "sleeping in" cause of a new mattress? They're saying his blood alcohol was over .15, over twice the limit, they found weed, and he was on the phone. Christ almighty what a fucking waste.
posted by vito90 at 11:29 AM on May 04, 2007
.157 blood alcohol level, marijuana and paraphernalia in the vehicle. With all the shit Leanord Little's gotten himself into in St. Louis, you'd think guys in that town would be a little smarter. A tragedy, but one of his own making.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:21 PM on May 04, 2007
Is it common for teams to provide alcohol to players after games?
posted by garfield at 03:39 PM on May 04, 2007
Is it common for teams to provide alcohol to players after games? Yes.
posted by bperk at 03:44 PM on May 04, 2007
I heard part of an interview with Tony LaRussa on the radio today. He said he sat down with Hancock and confronted him about his drinking two days before he died.
posted by rcade at 03:44 PM on May 04, 2007
Not for nothing, but LaRussa's credibility on the subject is nil.
posted by vito90 at 03:48 PM on May 04, 2007
"I think a lot of them really admire what the Oakland Athletics did by taking beer out of the clubhouse," the source said. "But this isn't really an issue for the league. It's one for the clubs. They should all be able to decide how to run their clubhouses." Yeah, right. Better to wait until some drunk player kills a fan.
posted by garfield at 03:50 PM on May 04, 2007
Not for nothing, but LaRussa's credibility on the subject is nil. The Cardinals organization, the players, and the fans were very supportive of LaRussa after his DUI. I don't think they should have thrown him under the bus, but this seemed more serious than just an embarrassment. Maybe if they had taken more severe action against him, LaRussa could have spoken to Hancock about the ramifications of such behavior with more authority.
posted by bperk at 04:13 PM on May 04, 2007
The Yankees have removed booze from both clubhouses and over a dozen teams are considering following suit in the aftermath of the Hancock tragedy.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 04:58 PM on May 08, 2007
.