Baseball Banning Beer?

Remove all ads!

No, not the sale of it during games, but the practice of providing beer, and other alcoholic beverages to the players after the games. A baseball game takes a few hours to play, and since it isn't typically a good idea to eat a big meal before taking part in an athletic event, it is customary for clubhouses to provide the baseball players food and beverages following the game. Following the game, it isn't unusual for a baseball player - while still at the stadium - to throw back a few beers and eat a sandwich or two following the game.

Well, that all changed about a week ago, when Josh Hancock was killed in a car accident. Hancock was a pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals. He was drunk at the time he got in the accident, and it was known by many of the players that he had been drinking after the game, including in the clubhouse immediately following the game.

Now many baseball teams are banning the practice of giving players alcoholic beverages following the game because of liability concerns. They don't particularly care if players want to have a few beers after a game, but they are telling them to go get the beer at a pub or the like.

At first, I thought that it seemed like a reasonable rule. Afterall, players on the home team typically live in the area, and thus, after the game, they will typically drive home in their cars. Thinking about it further though, I don't see why this should be a liability issue for the team. They aren't *forcing* the players to drink after the game. If it truly was a liability issue, then some guy who goes into a pub, has a few beers, and cracks his car up on the way home could then sue the pub for serving him alcohol. But the thing is, pub owners are generally NOT held liable if something like that happens. The only way a pub owner can get in trouble is if continues to serve alcohol to someone who is obviously drunk. Unless he's a real light weight, a guy who has a few beers in a pub isn't going to be blotto.

Furthermore, as more news comes out, it appears that Hancock didn't even get drunk at the stadium. He did have a few beers at the stadium, but then went to a bar after that, where he continued to drink. Based on the messages on his cell phone, it appears that when he left the bar, he wasn't going home, but actually to another bar. It seems to me that it is more likely that he got drunk at the bar, and not at the stadium, in which case, it doesn't make him any different than anyone else who gets drunk a decided to get behind the wheel.

So my new feeling on this is it's an over-reaction. So long as everyone on the team is at least 21 years old, I see no problem with players having a couple of beers at the stadium after the game. From what other baseball players are saying, it's not like all the players hang around a drink for several hours after the game - they have a beer or two and then go home. And since we're talking about legal adults here, how much one has to drink should be the responsibility of each individual - just like it is for everyone else in the US when it comes to limiting alcoholic consumption when you know you have to drive later.

It's especially ridiculous to ban players drinking beer on the visiting team, because they aren't driving *anywhere*. Their cars are in the cities they live in, and they are transported between the airport, hotel, and stadiums on team buses. So if they are going anywhere after a game, it's going to be in a cab.

Finally, I'm not trying to minimize what happened to Hancock. He was a young guy that had a bright future who was killed through his own irresponsibility. Because he did it to himself, it's difficult to call it tragic, but it is most certainly sad. I'm curious as to what other people think about this? Sounds like the coddling of adults if you ask me.

 

Sounds to me like you're right on the money, Aldeth. I agree completely. These days overreaction seems to be the norm, though. Coddling is the correct term. It's today's lawsuit happy, responsibility shirking society that causes this kind of overreaction. In my opinion this type of society is a direct result of the welfare/nanny state that is growing by leaps and bounds in this country. This results in a general feeling of entitlement and a corresponding decline of individual responsibility and independence. Private entities (like baseball teams) then become paranoid about lawsuits and enact ridiculous policies like this.

It sucks that he was killed but it was his own fault. I don't have a lot of sympathy for drunk drivers. It's fortunate that he didn't kill anyone else.

 

Yeah it is the same sort of idiotic B.S. that is stopping companies from being able to serve alcohol at Christmas parties etc. etc.

I have been saying for years that our society has become far too protectionistic. It started with those stupid slipping on icy sidewalk lawsuits and it just keeps getting dumber. It seems like the idea that you are responsible for taking care of yourself has completely fallen by the wayside.

 

I agree with the above posts.

 

What needs to happen is the players to take responsibility for their actions. Having enjoyed my beer back in the day, I'm not sayig an outright ban is the way to go, but having designated drivers or such services available, or even watching out for each other. Not much different than we are asked of ourselves, really. When we're out, we're asked to keep an eye on each other to try to prevent one of us from driving under the influence--by whatever means necessary.

 

I agree that it is absolute nonsence, but I disagree that it is the fault of a "Nanny state". In fact it's far too easy to blame it on the "Nanny State" - rather I think it is the fault of the legal system. The majority of the suing cases (such as slipping on icy pavements, falling through roof-lights when trying to burgle somewhere etc) should have been thrown out before wasting any money on them but unfortunately the legal system seems to be run to ensure all the lawyers do very nicely thank-you.

[ May 11, 2007, 10:51: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

But I look at the liability issue as a complete cop-out on the part of teams. While I agree that there are way too many frivolous law suits out there, I can't see how the team would possibly be held liable here. Going back to my earlier example, the only way a pub owner could be held responsible for a guy injuring himself or others after drinking in the pub is if the bartender continued serving the guy alcohol when he was already visibly intoxicated.

 

Well, I would look at the issue from another side and is what kind of message is being sent out to all the kids aiming for the big leagues. Play pro baseball and get wasted in the locker room after each game? Is that the message we want our athletes to give our kids? I dont care whether the players drink or not but to have it as an official and sanctioned part of the entire lifestyle of a baseball player seems a bit iffy for me.

As for the issue at hand, liability reasons should be the last reason why they stop giving the players beer.