Another blow to the idea of personal responsibility. We should be thankful that no one else died as a result of his own stupidity. I'm not making light of this, his death is tragic, but the fault lies with him, not with anyone else.

The teams suggesting banning alcohol in the clubhouse are merely insulting rational adults who enjoy a nice cocktail, but know when to stop.

I don't know why you think they did, but the A's did not ban alcohol in the wake of Hancock's death. They did it because Esteban Loiza was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence last June.

Also, alcohol is banned only in the A's clubhouse. This is because the players get in their cars and drive off after the game. Alcohol is allowed in the visiting clubhouse, but the A's do not provide it. The visiting team must bring their own alcohol.

I think the ban makes sense. Are you allowed to have a few beers at work then allowed to drive off? I doubt it.

Drew:

Per ESPN's Buster Olney from May 8:

"The Tampa Bay Devil Rays are in the process of reviewing their policy, and the New York Yankees have joined the Oakland Athletics in banning alcohol in both their home and visiting clubhouses. "

So I believe you're incorrect in noting that the A's have banned it only in their clubhouse. (Unless, of course, Olney is incorrect.)

But you do make a good rhetorical point in citing "regular" businesses that do not allow you to drink at work and then drive home.

To counter that argument, I would assert that baseball is not a normal business and would harken back to my point that beer in the clubhouse as a point of baseball tradition. That doesn't make it right, of course, but I believe what this boils down to is that there is alcohol abuse among players, and that banning it from the clubhouse really does nothing to solve the problem; it simply deflects it to another source, absolving teams of responsibility.

Banning alcohol is a superfiscial gesture, at best.

Well, first off, I work at the Oakland Coliseum, so I know what's going on there. I was there the day Loiza was arrested and the day Beane banned alcohol in the A's clubhouse. Olney's incorrect.

Also...

John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle, May 6, 2007:
"A's general manager Billy Beane banned alcohol from his clubhouse last season shortly after A's pitcher Esteban Loaiza was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence on June 14."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/06/SPGIDPLSJF1.DTL

It doesn't matter if baseball isn't a "normal" business. It still has to follow laws that other "regular" businesses must follow. And to the point that beer in the clubhouse is a tradition: not all traditions are good or necessary. Think about fraternity hazing. It's tradition at many places, but not necessarily a good thing.

I can understand the teams wanting to absolve themselves of repsonsibility. As a server, if I were to serve alcohol to someone who later gets in a car accident because of the alcohol, I can be held responsible and sued. At the very least I would lose my job. I would think the teams might be found just as liable were a player who drank too much in a clubhouse to get in an accident and kill someone and/or himself. I realize that Hancock wasn't drunk from alcohol served in the clubhouse. However, from a strictly business standpoint, I think it's a wise move for teams to protect themselves from possible litigation.

The issue is not that players drink too much after games. It's that they're human and everyone at one time or another will make a stupid decision, like getting into the driver's seat after having too much to drink.

The teams aren't saying players cannot drink alcohol whatsoever, they just can't do it at work.

I agree that it may not prevent accidents like Hancock's from happening, but at least some teams are preventing themselves from being the reason should one occur.

Side note: I just wonder why Hancock was alone. I mean, you'd think at least one teammate might've gone out with him, you know?

I used the wrong quote, my bad. Here's the one I wanted from the same article:

"Also, the A's don't supply alcohol in the visiting clubhouse but visiting teams can bring their own."

Drew:

In today's USA Today Sports section, they list the A's as banning alcohol in BOTH clubhouses. As you said, the article you linked indicates that the visiting clubhouses have to supply their own alcohol; the A's won't supply it. I think what we have here is a techinicality dispute: they say "ban"; the A's "don't supply". Six of one half, one dozen the other, really.

I agree that it may not prevent accidents like Hancock's from happening, but at least some teams are preventing themselves from being the reason should one occur.

Therein lies the problem from my perspective. Absolving oneself of responsibility isn't, well, very responsible; nor, as an organizations, does it show compassion or that they really care about the health of their players—which is very strange considering the amount of money teams have invested in their players. It's like they are throwing up their hands and saying "Hey, man, this isn't MY problem any more. I did what I could (ban booze). After this, it's on them (the players)." Well, that's not really very responsible as an organization, is it? That's not showing you care about your employee; or, as organization that claims to be a "family" oriented as the Cardinals do, is acting in a family-like manner. In a real family situation this banning issue would sound something like this, "OK, Junior's been hitting the sauce too much. That's it, booze is no longer allowed in this house." That doesn't fix Junior's drinking problem; it doesn't help at all really." It's a half-measure, if that.

So I agree that, yes, legally it's a wise thing to do. From a compassionate and caring perspective it does squawdoosh.

Side note: I just wonder why Hancock was alone. I mean, you'd think at least one teammate might've gone out with him, you know?

There's a lot in play here that we don't know about it. Maybe he wasn't that popular in the clubhouse. Maybe the rest of the team really wasn't into partying. Maybe they knew he had a problem and were staying away. Could be myriad reasons why. Tough to say, ya know?

Peter, we're on the same page on this. As I wrote in my blog post on the same subject, America is prone to knee-jerk reactions in the wake of tragedy. As is the case with many such decisions made in response to grief and anger, banning alcohol from the clubhouse does nothing to fix the problem.

For starters, no rules or regulations will bring back Josh Hancock. Secondly, if people want a beer they're going to find one. Personally, I'd rather have players drinking it after the game as they decompress than at some bar where they're likely to load up.

Peter F.:

Just because you take it away in one locale doesn't mean they won't go and seek it out in another locale.

And that's the money quote right there. You are right on target.

Oh, and uh...when did we all really leave these comments? All of the time and date stamps, including the ones for your post Peter, are exactly the same. ;-)

Well, Tom, if this was WizbangBLUE they'd certainly note the times as a sure sign that the Bush Administration, in particular, Karl Rove, was tapping into their conversations.

(How strong are my powers of observation? Well, I never noticed, honestly. lol)

Update:

Hancock's Dad is suing the driver of the stalled vehicle for Josh's death. Get F'n real.

He's also suing Shannon's Resturant for providing the alcohol. I wonder if he's going to sue the guy who provided the weed or the stripper Josh was talking to on the cell phone?

Seems only fair right?

Hancock's Dad is suing the towing company and the driver of the stalled car for being on the side of the road. Also, suing Shannon's resturant for supplying the alcohol.

I wonder if they will also sue the stripper he was talking to on the cell phone and the drug dealer that sold him the pot he was carrying?!