Im not surprised either - by the description of the crash, it sure seemed pretty tough for a sober person with their wits about them to get into.

On ESPN last night they reported that Campbell denied some of what the couple claimed to have overheard.

Campbell said that he had no impression on if Hancock was impaired at the time that Campbell left.

I won't be surprised if the autopsy shows he was impaired, but I also think that we should probably wait for the autopsy before jumping to that conclusion.

Backing up what I just said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2854743

"The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on Monday, however, that a couple in a bar on the night Hancock died overheard the pitcher telling an ESPN radio personality that he "had spent all night drinking," and that's why he was late for the Thursday game.

Baseball analyst Dave Campbell said that Hancock did not say anything like that, but the player did introduce himself that evening at Mike Shannon's Restaurant and Bar and the two talked baseball.

The couple also said that Hancock was served "several drinks" the night he died, but they could not say how much or if he was intoxicated. Campbell told ESPN that he had no sense of the pitcher's condition when he left him at approximately 9:45 p.m. to go to another restaurant.

The customer in the Post-Dispatch article said that Hancock was drinking at least through 10:30 p.m. when the customer left."

If that's the case, fuck him and fuck the outpouring of misguided sympathy. If that's the case, let's be thankful he took no one else with him.

Wells,
Surely there is a middle ground somewhere between hate and adulation?

Given the lack of response to La Russa's drunk driving this spring, and how the issue dropped from the media almost immediately, if the toxicology reports to indicate he was drunk, maybe the team/baseball needs to institute a formal policy. Again, this is an IF.

People aren't dying from performance-enhancing drugs, yet they get all the rap. Our response to these things is often highly unrelated to the reality of the situation. Everyone gets on Bonds about PEDs because they don't want to believe that he's as good as he is (he is that good). Meanwhile, drunk drivers (Tony LaRussa) are treated with respect, because hey, alcohol isn't making him a better manager. It's just arbitrary- we want to bring down the stars and inflate the Ecksteinian scrapsters. Imagine if say, Mariano Rivera was caught smoking a cigarette. That would be a huge deal, but it isn't.

But the point here is that someone died. So he was driving drunk. Now do we automatically revoke our sympathy like some gluttonous Roman crowd hungry for human blood? A human being died. This has nothing to do with baseball. He had a job- he was a baseball player. So what? If we are going to revoke our sympathy because he was drunk, then I suggest not giving it in the first place. I am not a friend of Josh Hancock's; I never even saw him pitch. I am not going to gorge myself on the pornography of compassion that is perpetually poured on us by the media. It never helped anyone, and it is not helping Josh Hancock, or his family.

As I read the story, I thought about Curt Schilling's remarks about the media.

The article seemed to have less substance than the title implied.

Hancock is dead, why suggest that he was drinking unless it has been conclusively shown that he did. Why speculate?

I don't understand the rush - why not wait a couple days for the toxicology report from the autopsy? Should be out soon. Why release comments from anonymous people?

Wow, Wells, what an awful, heartless, evil thing to say.

David Pinto, can you delete that comment? Better yet, can you ban Wells from commenting?

JeffW, yes, it was a thoughtless and heartless comment. So what? You are suggesting censorship. That would be as reckless as commenting while under the influence.

Censorship is bad when the government does it (in most cases).

When someone does it on their own blog, then it is a good thing. We need more civility, not less.

What? I should pity someone who drinks and drives, thoughtlessly endangering the lives of innocent people?

cephyn ,

Maybe you should drive that stretch of road before you comment on the difficulty or lack thereof.

By chance, I drove it today. It's at a point where the highway takes a dip under the Compton Avenue overpass and then rises to an elevated section while curving to the left. A tow truck in the left lane might not be so visible.

Hey Wells, didn't you pitch a perfect game sporting a nice hangover?

Gerry, I agree with you 100%.

Didi, I'm not suggesting the government infringe upon freedom of speech; I'm asking that an individual enforce a basic code of civil discourse and respect on his blog. There's a very big difference there. David Pinto doesn't have to say "so what?" when people post ugly, callous comments on his web site. He can remove them and maintain some decency on a site that gets a decent amount of traffic. Try leaving an obscene comment on espn.com and see if they tolerate it. They won't, and their right to do so has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment.

The comment by Wells is an ugly comment. Normally, I would remove it, but the people commenting since are expressing the good sense that makes the comments section of this blog so enlightening. I'm leaving it up as an example of how not to comment, but I'll watch for this individual in the future.

Wells: first of all, you don't know what the facts of the situation are. None of us do yet. So perhaps you should be a little more careful with your choice of words until all the facts are in.

Second, nobody likes sanctimoniousness. You've never made a mistake? I doubt that very much. Driving while drunk is wrong, no doubt about it, but it doesn't exactly make the guy a terrorist. Do you really need to be dropping f-bombs about someone in a public forum just a couple of days after he died? Even if he was driving while intoxicated, he paid for his mistake with his life, and many people lost someone who was dear to them. So ease off and leave your foul comments on another thread.

The couple said they overheard Hancock telling ESPN broadcaster Dave Campbell that manager Tony La Russa had been infuriated with Hancock on Thursday because he was "too hung over to play."

Assuming of course that this is even true, perhaps Mr. Larussa should consider the example he sets.

JeffW, you're right. I apologize - I should not have sounded off as I did. It's a touchy subject for me and I was having a bad day on top of things. My apologies to all.

the entire problem with drunk drivers is that most people insist it is just "a mistake." it isn't any more "a mistake" than firing a loaded gun in the air and hoping the bullets don't kill anyone when they come down

when they start prosecuting drunk drivers who kill/injure people for attempted murder/murder then maybe things will change

and i am talking about driving after drinking, not about josh hancock because i got NO idea if he did that.

JeffW, very thoughtful. Hear, hear.