Getting BAC to where we once ...

[Electron Boy]

Originally Posted by DaddyBigBucks

Deleted by DBB

i think it's pretty difficult to see shades of gray when it concerns a crime that puts not only yourself, but many many others at risk as well. the legal bac level may have changed in recent years, but the plain fact of the matter is that when you get over .08, your driving is impaired and you're a danger to everyone else on the road. i'm not saying that you're going to go out and kill someone everytime you drive after having a few beers, but someone worthington's size should've known the effects of how much alcohol he was consuming.

with that said, he's still a young guy, and apologizing and taking responsibility for what he did was the mature way to handle it. unfortunately sometimes the best way to learn is from mistakes, and i'm sure worthington has. i find it extremely hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt on something like a DD, but worthington did the right thing here.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by Electron Boy

... the plain fact of the matter is that when you get over .08, your driving is impaired and you're a danger to everyone else on the road...

I'm going to say something unpopular here. As a society we are (properly) concerned about drunk driving. But bac of 0.08 is not in any way "drunk." It's "impaired," no question, but so is driving with a cell phone in your ear, a Big Mac in your mitt, tuning a fresh set of tunes, or a whining kid in a car seat.

Studies have been done on the "drunk driver" problem, and most of the alcohol-related crashes are caused by drivers with bac well in excess of 0.15. So I'm a little annoyed by the neo-Prohibitionists who try to argue that the person who has had a half-bottle of wine with dinner and then drives home rates somewhere along with al-Qaeda as a threat to society.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

I'm going to say something unpopular here. As a society we are (properly) concerned about drunk driving. But bac of 0.08 is not in any way "drunk." It's "impaired," no question, but so is driving with a cell phone in your ear, a Big Mac in your mitt, tuning a fresh set of tunes, or a whining kid in a car seat.

Studies have been done on the "drunk driver" problem, and most of the alcohol-related crashes are caused by drivers with bac well in excess of 0.15. So I'm a little annoyed by the neo-Prohibitionists who try to argue that the person who has had a half-bottle of wine with dinner and then drives home rates somewhere along with al-Qaeda as a threat to society.

but you have to realize some places its illegal to drive and talk on a phone. the laws the law and i respect your views, we need to follow them. sure you dont have to agree with them and you are free to lobby agains them, you still have to follow them or face the consequences. its not an argument of whether its right or wrong. what doug did was illegal. he got caught. he'll pay the price.

john wooden always said "never embrass your teammates" reality is whether thats a half hearted effort, a failing grade in a class or drunk driving, doug did that. he embrassed his teammates, he put his teams name, his hometown, his family name, his university, and his family light out there in a negative view. hell play the price in the legal system, if indeed he is guilty. and he will pay the price to his football team (running, suspension, etc-reality is here it hurts his team more than it hurts him).

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

but you have to realize some places its illegal to drive and talk on a phone. the laws the law and i respect your views, we need to follow them.

Absolutely correct. Break the law, pay the price, without question. My gripe is with the societal opprobrium that is placed on presumed "drunk drivers" who really weren't drunk.

Doug's day in court is coming; let's see how it plays out.

[craigblitz]

I caught his appology on 1460. I have never heard Doug speak, so my comments may be way off, but to me his appology did not sound sincere at all. Then he said he does not think his actions should require him to miss a game and the punishment should not be taken that far.

Either a VERY poor job of him communicating or someone who does not understand the real severity of driving drunk.

[Bleed S & G]

Originally Posted by craigblitz

or someone who does not understand the real severity of driving drunk.

Bah.. he was at point 0.08.. I highly highly doubt he was "driving drunk"

I understand this is a touchy subject - but I don't think he was swerving and slurring words, etc.

[craigblitz]

So in Doug case are you recommending that punishment should directly be tied to how much above the limit you were... So, if he was a .081 that would be an extra mile? If he was a .1 maybe a full game?

The fact is the young man broke multiple laws (speeding, underage drinking, and driving above the legal limit) and it sounded as if he does not take the charges seriously.

So maybe I am wrong, but just to say Bah, he was only kind of breaking the law doesn't fit my idea of what the coaches or the university is trying to teach the young man.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by craigblitz

So in Doug case are you recommending that punishment should directly be tied to how much above the limit you were...

...it sounded as if he does not take the charges seriously...

So you are recommending that punishment should be meted out on the basis of how the young man "sounds" in a media interview?

My point is that the court system and the university both have something to say about Doug's immediate and long-term future, relative both to team status and legal status. We should let those institutions do their work. And, IMO, we should refrain from hyper-critical commentary about "driving drunk" given that none of us was there.