MLB Correctly Realizes That Beer Ban is “Asinine”
It’s a good thing Major League Baseball isn’t going to, you know, overreact to the Boston Red Sox collapse. After the famous Boston Globe article that gently blew open the clubhouse, revealing that — shockingly! — some of the Red Sox pitchers ate chicken and drank beer during the ballgames, the commissioner’s office felt it had no choice but to explore a total ban on beer in the clubhouse. Joe Torre finally decided against such a ban, but Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon was wise enough to call the ban what it was: “asinine.”
All of this knee-jerk stuff that occurs in our game absolutely drives me crazy. If you want to be proactive about some thoughts, go ahead, be proactive and I’m all for that. But to say a grown-up can’t have a beer after a game? Give me a break. That is, I’m going to use the word, ‘asinine,’ because it is. Let’s bring the Volstead Act back, OK. Let’s go right back to prohibition and start legislating everything all over again. All that stuff pretty much annoys me, as you can tell.*
* Not only do I agree, I give Maddon major props for referencing the Volstead Act, the 1919 law that led to accompanied the passage of the 18th Amendment banning the manufacture, sale, and transport of intoxicating beverages. It remained on the books until December 5, 1933, when the 21st amendment, repealing the eighteenth and ending Prohibition, was ratified. Both of these events have been commemorated by modern distillers and brewers: on December 5, 2008, Dewar’s Whisky celebrated the 75th anniversary of Repeal Day, and the 21st Amendment Brewery was founded in San Francisco in 2000 as a celebration of the law that let us drink again. I’m a fan of their Back in Black IPA. Later in the interview, Maddon identified himself as more of a wine drinker. De gustibus non disputandum est.
The problem that the article revealed was less about beer and more about a total breakdown in clubhouse communication. Different players operated by different rules, and Terry Francona was unable to foster any sense of community. The Red Sox, obviously, have had a reputation of clubhouse disharmony for a long, long time. (Peter Gammons’s pithy description, “25 players, 25 cabs,” was written three decades ago.) And just as obviously, it didn’t hurt them much when they were the best team in baseball this summer.
You’d be hard-pressed to find someone on a website like Fangraphs who believes that team chemistry is particularly determinate of success; we’ve all snickered our way through columns like this from retired Tufts professor Sol Gittleman in 2008: “With the Age of Clemens, there was still a lack of leadership in the clubhouse; it was still 25 players, 25 cabs. And then it changed. The Yawkey Age was over. There were new faces, new ideas and an understanding that talent and character won titles. … The Red Sox are getting what they deserve, and everyone is smiling. We have the Age of John Henry, Larry and Theo. All’s well.”
Of course, all wasn’t well this year, but it wasn’t the fault of the beer. When Bobby Bonilla and Rickey Henderson famously played cards by themselves in the dugout while the New York Mets lost the 1999 NLCS to the Braves, no one suggested banning Hoyle. But bans are in the air these days. At the start of the World Series, Sen. Dick Durbin renewed his call for a clubhouse ban on smokeless tobacco, which I argued against in February. In September, USA Today reported: “The Diamondbacks and Houston Astros have stopped providing energy drinks in their clubhouse and are discouraging players from using them.” This time, it was Diamondback closer J.J. Putz who called it “asinine.” (For that matter, so did fark.com.)
The Astros and Diamondbacks may be overreacting, but it’s certainly their prerogative to determine what they serve, and Gatorade isn’t exactly health food. (Yes, I know, it’s got electrolytes.) But let’s not go overboard and blame Torre et al for exploring the issue and determining to do nothing, a strategy they successfully employed after the allegations that Alex Rodriguez participated in illegal high-stakes poker games. Here’s the rough chronology: the Boston Globe article about the Red Sox appeared on October 12; the blogosphere exploded; Joe Torre announced on October 23 that MLB was considering banning beer in clubhouses; he then backed off the next day, saying the decision would be left to the teams. (Eighteen of the 30 clubs already prohibit beer in the clubhouse; the Red Sox are among just 12 teams that allow it.)
Through the Rodriguez and now beer incidents, it appears that Torre may be establishing a pattern in his brief tenure as Major League Baseball’s executive vice president of baseball operations: when something of concern occurs, get ahead of the news cycle by announcing that you’re looking into it, weather the storm of criticism and pundits pointing out that you have no authority for enforcement, and then announce that no action will be taken at this time.
Of course, that’s all he can do. After all, Torre doesn’t have the power to ban much of anything himself — that’s all fodder for the ongoing Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations. It’s easy to make fun of a public relations strategy like that, but in my opinion, it’s far preferable to the know-nothing posture of the steroid era: better that MLB feints an overreaction than uses ignorance as an excuse for underreaction. The key point for me, at the end of the day, is that Torre understood that public opinion was heated over the matter, and then came to the correct policy conclusion.
It may be asinine, but at least it’s moving in the right direction.
Alex is a writer for The Hardball Times.
Really? Assanine for a business not to give alcohol to its employees, before they drive home? What business allows alcohol in the work place at all anymore (outside of those that sell it)?
I don’t understand why any business would supply free alcohol at the workplace in this age of lawsuits. It’s baffling to me how this is even a discussion anymore. And, its not at all like the government banning you from drinking in your home or anywhere else.
There’s a difference between “giv[ing] alcohol to its employees” and prohibiting the consumption of alcohol at the ballgame. As many people have pointed out, every other adult can purchase beer and drink at the ballgame. It seems problematic to ban only players from doing something that every other adult may choose to do.
I agree with you that a ban is unnecessary, but its not like every other adult at the game is being paid to be there. It seems far from asinine to expect employees to not drink while at work.
From your own example at a bar, the bartender is not allowed to drink while he’s working.
I agree with the majority of the article, but you weren’t surprised that pitchers openly drank in the clubhouse DURING games? I mean it’s one thing to be discreet about it and handle your business, but once you get busted it’s on you. That screams childish and unprofessional behavior, if you can’t wait until after the game you don’t deserve to be treated like an adult. I don’t think it effects the performance on the field, but I also don’t think they should be allowed to drink while the game is going on just because it’s not their day to pitch.
On a different note, I find it hilarious that these same beer companies are openly fighting against the repeal of the marijuana prohibition.
There is also a difference between “letting your employees drink on the job” and not. While it would be dumb for the MLB to legislate that, as it is a club matter (being the employers), it’s not at all crazy to ban drinking on the job.
I mean… would it be kosher for you to crack open a beer in front of your computer when the clock hits 5 at work? Could you keep a bottle of scotch in your desk to tug on if it’s a slow day and you don’t have any meetings? My guess would be no. Likewise, the guys who serve the beer at stadiums probably aren’t even allowed to drink their product on the job. At the very least, I’ve never seen a guy at the beer stand drinking one down.
So I think you’re making a pretty spurious analogy. I would hazard to say that MANY employees at the stadium are not allowed to drink while there and would in fact be fired if they did so. Players happen to be a very special exception to the rule, in my opinion.
@ Hodgy —
That is the point and it’s a little disingenuous to ignore that element of the situation. The Sox’ pitchers were drinking DURING GAMES! Not after the game with the others, tossing one back before the drive home. They were drinking during the ballgame. And Alex points out above, “fans get to drink at the ballpark. Why can’t the players?” Since fans can drink during games, is it OK that the Sox’ players were? That’s asinine!
For example, see the end of this piece from a guy selling beer in Chicago:
“Plenty of fans assume that many of us beer vendors actually drink before (or during the game). In all honesty, this is a falsehood. I almost NEVER see beer vendors drinking before or during a game. First of all, drinking on the job carries very strict consequences; nobody wants to jeopardize an entire summer’s wages for a pre-game beer, no matter how frosty cold it may be.”
Source: http://www.causeandaffectfoundation.org/beerguy/pregame.htm
So… what was that about every adult in the park being able to drink? Because I’m willing to bet the lady that pours you a soda would get fired too if she was drinking on her break.
As a policy, I have no problem with teams forbidding their players from drinking beer in the clubhouse — and I think they probably should. I have a major problem with Major League Baseball prohibiting a legal, non-performance-enhancing substance.
Do you think that individual TGIF franchises should ban their employees from consuming beer on the job/during work hours, but that TGIF corporate headquarters should leave it up to individual franchises to decide?
Presumably if a player finds it overly burdensome to play on an MLB team, he can go play in another league. Presumably if a team finds it overly burdensome to be a part of MLB baseball they can join an independent league. And presumably if MLB baseball finds it overly burdensome to have Congress looking into their business, they can compete in a deregulated market.
It’s an imperfect analogy for two main reasons: the first is the structure of the industry and the second is the nature of the industry itself.
Structurally, Major League Baseball is more of a cross between the TGIF corporate office and the National Restaurant Association. I would argue that while TGIF has a legitimate case to make for banning alcohol consumption on the premises by employees, it would be far more high-handed for the National Restaurant Association to attempt to do so — not to mention laughable, considering that the National Restaurant Association has no enforcement mechanism.
In terms of the nature of the industry itself, Major League Baseball is not a customer service industry like the restaurant industry. Baseball players don’t personally take your order; they don’t interact with you at all. The biggest reason for TGIF to ban drinking on the job is in order to minimize alcohol-exacerbated interactions with customers. If a baseball player has a beer in the clubhouse on his day off, I really don’t see how it makes anyone worse off: it doesn’t harm the customer, it doesn’t harm his fellow employees, it doesn’t harm management, and it doesn’t harm the product.
MLB has authority to make rules. The National Restaurant Association doesn’t. MLB owners agree to follow the rules set forth by MLB. TGIF owners agree to follow the rules set forth by TGIF corporate headquarters. MLB in no way resembles the National Restaurant Association as far as rule making and coercive power is concerned.
If I have a single beer at my desk it wouldn’t affect my work either, nor would it have an effect on the work of others. Yet I can’t have a single beer at my desk.
I work in an office in DC and we can drink at work (and this is a place with a dress code). Guys who where tight white pants for a living should be able to drink after work.
MLB doesn’t have the ability to make rules in this instance. Substances are regulated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. If Major League Baseball wants a universal ban of beer then it will have to bring that preference to the bargaining table and negotiate for it.
Guys who where tight white pants for a living should be able to drink after work.
==========================
but wear would one these guys whering white pants?
Ohhhh… I know your reasoning, but the logic isn’t sound.
” As a policy, I have no problem with teams forbidding their players from drinking beer in the clubhouse — and I think they probably should. I have a major problem with Major League Baseball prohibiting a legal, non-performance-enhancing substance.”
They aren’t prohibiting anything, the rule would be to just drink elsewhere. Ican’t drink before or during work, unless i desire to get fired or forfeit hours I’ve already worked. If someone drunk comes into my restaurant or is drinking and comes in, do I serve ’em? Yes! Does this very same analogy apply to the Red Sox situation, yes. So what reason, other than the wonderful “Come on!” logic, is there? Nothing’s banned, and as much as I am socially liberal, there’s something very much wrong about this situation.
Remmy, are the fans at work when they are at a game? Are they being given free beer? Your comparison is a joke.
Evo, I don’t think Jon Lester was being given free beer either. The question is whether he should be prohibited from consuming beer, not whether the Red Sox should provide their players with free booze during the game.
My echo, there’s no way for players to drink “elsewhere” — it would be a major breach of protocol for them to leave the clubhouse during the game. And, as we’ve discussed earlier, they spend a lot of time with the team when they’re not at the games, so it’s not like they just work a 9-to-5 job with lunch breaks and a happy hour. Because they’re compelled to stay at work, a rule against drinking amounts to an effective prohibition.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think starting pitchers should drink during the ballgame, because it’s disrespectful to their teammates. No position player or reliever would drink during the game. I just don’t think that MLB should issue a high-handed ban. I think this is an issue best regulated by teams.
“but wear would one these guys whering white pants?”
nothing better than a typo in a grammar correction. well done, now back to your dishwashing station. sorry you don’t work somewear in which it is understood that the employees are responsible enough to not get trashed at work and do something stupid.