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.
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 Mbius strip stand-in of my life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would laugh at Qbert's comment, but it would be like laughing at somebody's funeral.
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.
[Comment deleted from this discussion and moved to Lockerroom.]
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.
.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.
Is it common for teams to provide alcohol to players after games?
Is it common for teams to provide alcohol to players after games? Yes.
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.
Not for nothing, but LaRussa's credibility on the subject is nil.
"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.
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.
The Yankees have removed booze from both clubhouses and over a dozen teams are considering following suit in the aftermath of the Hancock tragedy.
