La Russa arrested for DUI in Feb; charged day before hire

[Quin]

2 minutes ago, timbo8 said:

 

Looks like we're riding and dying with him for a few months.

[MiddleCoastBias]

The Sox' public comment days later comes out like a wet fart.

Craig gets it.

 

 

[shakes]

32 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I'm comfortable with our legal system punishing guilty people. It's certainly within your right to additionally  punish the people and organizations around them. Is it your opinion that the justices system does not deliver a severe enough penalty on the individual? 

Employment and the legal system are two completely different things. Employment is an earned privilege. There doesn't need to be a conviction to take action on an employee. I am held to a standard at my job that is well above the standard of the legal system, and so should LaRussa. Particularly at a privately held company. Public embarrassment to a company is frequently grounds for termination and often times that happens well before the legal outcome. Private companies are not held to an obligation to wait out the legal process, this is an active choice by the White Sox.

I've seen people fired for much much less, including social media posts. There are absolutely no legal consequences, but there sure are employment consequences,

The Sox are telling the public his behavior is acceptable to their organization. I would not make the same choice. Partly, because of your earlier comment that this is likely to impact many other White Sox employees and potential future employees. I do not see a single upside to them digging in their heels. 

[TheTruth05]

"Hey guys we understand you guys don't like it but guess what....WE DON'T CARE!"

[Two-Gun Pete]

2 hours ago, oneofthemikes said:

"Your Honor, I'm a Hall of Famer Baseball Person. I'm legit. I don't want to put words in your mouth but, case dismissed. Who's up for a cocktail? I'm drivin'!"

Ya know, I dont know which is worse:

1. That he's 76 fvkcing years old, and can't get a handle on this issue, OR

2. That he's been financially independent for  at least a quarter century, yet can't get a fvkcing limo, cab, or uber to get him to/from dinner & drinks, OR

3. That he's a self-important fvkc-stick that tries to "big time" his way out of trouble?

 

Clearly, he's "big timed" his way to get what he wants in the past, based on his behaviors and choices in life. Which makes him a fvkcing piece of shit. At the same time, I've always believed that with age comes wisdom, so WTF is wrong with his judgment? And, I give less leeway to someone who has resources to manage a bad situation than someone who does not.

Hes a fvkcing stain.

 

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes. There is a reason why I no longer say the name of the Cleveland Baseball club

Ok, two quick things for you on this point:

1. Many/most that are from peoples native to America HATE being called "Native Americans," and prefer to be called, "Indian." Does that matter to you or not?

2. From my view, the red-faced mascot and imagery were off-the-chart racist. But, that org has been moving away from/phasing out that imagery and mascot. Does their awareness and sensitivity to this issue make a difference?

Edited November 12, 2020 by Two-Gun Pete

[Balta1701]

30 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Obviously not. We need tougher DUI laws. I'm in favor of a lifetime requirement of ignition lockout devices after your first conviction.

So if the Cardinals had a dozen sponsors drop would that have stopped him? 

 

If Anheuser-Busch came in to the Cardinals and said "This makes our responsible drinking programs look really bad, we need Mr. LaRussa to not only do this, but to go and complete a treatment program and sit down and talk about it with various groups"...the Cardinals are going to say no? I mean, literally, the Cardinals had a player die that same season driving drunk while talking on a cell phone. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-dead-st-louis-pitcher-drove-drunk-04-05-2007/#:~:text=Louis Pitcher Drove Drunk,-May 4%2C 2007&text=AM %2F CBS%2FAP-,St.,utility vehicle he was driving.

[BFirebird]

2 minutes ago, TheTruth05 said:

"Hey guys we understand you guys don't like it but guess what....REINSDORF DOESN'T CARE!"

Fixed that for you.

Are we ever going to hire any coaches to go with the manager?  Or is he too busy with his lawyers for that at the moment.

[Rowand44]

"We're getting hammered by the media so we have to put out some sort of statement.  Ya, fuck it, say whatever the lawyer said."

[ThirdGen]

33 minutes ago, The Hawk said:

YOu can't fine the team for anything of the kind. He wasn't an employee of the Sox when he did this and this is a legal matter outside of their sphere of influence.

And actually, I believe he was out with Angels employees.  So if anyone deserves a fine, it would be them, particularly if TLR was obviously messed up at that dinner.

Edited November 12, 2020 by ThirdGen

[Texsox]

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If Anheuser-Busch came in to the Cardinals and said "This makes our responsible drinking programs look really bad, we need Mr. LaRussa to not only do this, but to go and complete a treatment program and sit down and talk about it with various groups"...the Cardinals are going to say no? I mean, literally, the Cardinals had a player die that same season driving drunk while talking on a cell phone. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-dead-st-louis-pitcher-drove-drunk-04-05-2007/#:~:text=Louis Pitcher Drove Drunk,-May 4%2C 2007&text=AM %2F CBS%2FAP-,St.,utility vehicle he was driving.

And that would have prevented this DUI 13 years later? Why not have the courts require everyone if it prevents repeats? Wait, isn't treatment and victim impact panels a requirement for most DUI convictions already?

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

And that would have prevented this DUI 13 years later? Why not have the courts require everyone if it prevents repeats?

An appropriate educational program? It certainly could have.

[Dick Allen]

'they released the nothingburger so Abreu won't have to answer LaRussa questions when winning the MVP later today.

[Kyyle23]

40 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Obviously not. We need tougher DUI laws. I'm in favor of a lifetime requirement of ignition lockout devices after your first conviction.

So if the Cardinals had a dozen sponsors drop would that have stopped him? 

 

One of his Cardinals players killed himself driving drunk into the back of a tow truck.  Clearly he doesn't care

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, Kyyle23 said:

One of his Cardinals players killed himself driving drunk into the back of a tow truck.  Clearly he doesn't care

Some people don't know how to drive drunk. Tony is a HOFer. He's legit. He knows.

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

An appropriate educational program? It certainly could have.

So your plan is to pressure sponsors to demand he goes into a victim impact panel and completes an alcohol awareness class. (At least in Texas that's pretty standard for everyone). And if he doesn't, the sponsor should stop supporting the Sox and pull their ads. 

I think it's easier to have the courts continue to require that for everyone. But whatever.

 

 

[gusguyman]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

and I respect that decision. Now when will you start pressuring their sponsors? Or are you just pressuring the favorite team of everyone here?

Pretty sure this was already posted in this thread, I can't believe it has to be trotted out again already

[ThirdGen]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

And that would have prevented this DUI 13 years later? Why not have the courts require everyone if it prevents repeats?

The fact that he agreed to a breathalyzer test on the spot, despite having prior experience in this area, would indicate to me that he did not believe he was drunk at the time.  I don't believe an education program would have prevented what was probably more of a really bad lapse in judgement than an intentional decision to drive drunk.  If he thought he was drunk, he would have delayed the test as long as possible.

If I were him, and thank god I'm not, I would give up my driver's license and use my probably high paycheck to Uber it everywhere forever.

[Texsox]

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Some people don't know how to drive drunk. Tony is a HOFer. He's legit. He knows.

I was shocked he gets belligerent when drunk. 

Actually I'm trying to find the article that proposed people with self driving cars are increasingly driving drunk in a belief that the car is a HoF driver. Well not HoF, but a better choice.

[Texsox]

and so it doesn't get lost

I believe Larussa should never have been hired. If convicted he should quit immediately or be fired. Drunk driving should be punished with a lifetime ignition lockout device. Innocent people should not be collateral damage while punishing guilty people.

[Dick Allen]

The first time Tony was busted, his car was in drive and he was passed out with his foot on the brake. How lucky was that?

[southsider2k5]

37 minutes ago, timbo8 said:

 

We "understand the seriousness"

We just don't give a shit about dead people from DUIs.

[bigruss]

Stone was taking a similar stance, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  I think we all (or hope) agree with that.

But that's also why organizations DON'T hire someone who is under investigation or charge, because there is risk that there is guilty.  You would wait until that person is cleared and then hire them.

So what happens if Tony has to serve a sentence, do the Sox really hold onto him at that point?  I'm not sure how MLB doesn't intervene if that happens.

[ChiSox59]

11 hours ago, GradMc said:

40 years of tone-deaf Reinsdorf apologists.... just as tiresome.

It is indeed a new level of condescension towards the base. Oh how I wish he could have bought in his native New York. 

I am far from a "Reinsdorf apologist" and nothing in my post would indicate as such.

But I am not about to throw myself off a cliff because the Sox hired a guy with the 3rd most wins in MLB history because he got a DUI and he is old.  Its a bad hire - I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.  But its not going to be the beginning of the end for the Sox.  As i've told you several times, the organization will be just fine and the Sox will still be very good in 21 no matter who manages them.  

 

[bigruss]

Just now, ChiSox59 said:

I am far from a "Reinsdorf apologist" and nothing in my post would indicate as such.

But I am not about to throw myself off a cliff because the Sox hired a guy with the 3rd most wins in MLB history because he got a DUI and he is old.  Its a bad hire - I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.  But its not going to be the beginning of the end for the Sox.  As i've told you several times, the organization will be just fine and the Sox will still be very good in 21 no matter who manages them.  

 

This isn't about if the Sox will win, this is about ethics.

[ChiSox59]

1 minute ago, bigruss said:

This isn't about if the Sox will win, this is about ethics.

I understand.  I said the Sox will be just fine.  He said they won't.  We're not discussing ethics in this particular conversation.  

I too think the Sox should fire TLR today.  But they're not going to.