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.
Not to shortchange the rest of the post, but your own major props from me for the Idiocracy reference.
Ban beer in the clubhouse?!
What’s next–banning sex in the clubhouse?
I think Homer Simpson has already said this far better than I ever could:
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F06.html
Seriously, where am I supposed to sneak into to “do it” during the game?
I’ve always found it kind of weird that professional athletes would openly use tobacco products during the actual playing of their games.
Those same players openly used amphetamines…some players like Carbo and Dock Ellis claim they openly used psychedelics and a lot of players didn’t think it effected performance. Seriously.
And then, of course, there’s the famous story about a supposedly drunken Pete Alexander nailing down a save in Game 7 of the 1926 World Series, after having pitched nine innings the day before.
It’s apparently not true — according to the link below, Alexander was likely stone sober, though he often battled alcoholism after his service in World War I — but it’s one of the most beloved stories in baseball history, and it’s been told and retold for three-quarters of a century. The heroic myth of ballplayers succeeding spectacularly while debilitated by mind-altering substances is nearly as old as the modern sport.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/12/sports-legend-revealed-was-grover-cleveland-alexander-drunk-when-he-struck-out-tony-lazzeri-in-game-.html
All Boggs did was drink beer and eat chicken and he was one of the best players the Red Sox ever had.
Boggs ate chicken? I thought he was a beer-powered organism.
While I do agree that Congress should butt the hell out of baseball, MLB should absolutely ban chewing tobacco. Ban it tomorrow in the minors and give the majors a 1 year waiver for players to have time to kick their habit but it is absolutely a terrible example for children, particularly since anyone watching any game sees all the evidence of their habit. I don’t think Selig has the stones to do it but it should’ve been done yesterday.
But why should they? I know this is a tired argument neither side can win, but what is the impetus that says professional athletes have to serve as role models? By that logic, John Rocker should never have been allowed to play major league baseball as his blatant everythingism was a bad example for everyone.
I also applaud you for using “should’ve” correctly. Kudos
Chewing tobacco is already banned in the minors.
We need to ban chewing tabacco, but then encourage snuff.
Sudden desire to watch the Dock Ellis no-hitter LSD video on YouTube.
Ruth?
Energy drinks are pretty bad for you. That said, I see no need for top-down legislation.
Are they really? Is coffee bad for you?
Everything is bad for you, in sufficient quantity. Caffeine certainly isn’t as healthy for your body as some substances.
But I’m certainly against banning it.
The issue isn’t the caffeine, but the taurine and whatever other junk they put in there.
On the other hand, if I were an employer, I’d definitely ban consumption of alcoholic beverages in the workplace. I wouldn’t want the potential legal liability…
This really shouldn’t be an issue needing legislation, and like this, tobacco in the dugout, the BCS, the basketball lockout, or any of the other myraid of sports related issues looming, congress should be focusing on, you know, fixing the economy or something actually important to the state of the country.
That being said, I know it’s kind of in the culture of the game right now, but actually thinking about it it does strike me as a little weird that an employer would allow alcohol consumption on the clock, which is essentially what is happening here. I work for an NFL team as a pregame entertainer. My job is done prior to kickoff, and once kickoff happens I get to sit in my seat and watch the game. However, the team is very clear that if alcohol is being consumed, my credential gets put away for the rest of the game and I become a fan at that point and lose the access to team facilities. If I want to keep my access to team specific parts of the stadium, no drinking is allowed. And this seems entirely reasonable to me, as I would still be representing the team.
The argument that grown men should be able to do what grown men want shouldn’t be in play here. This should be a matter of consuming alcohol while on the job, which in the vast majority of occupations just isn’t allowed. Pitchers, even on their off days, represent the team while they are at the job site. It shouldn’t have to be MLB or Congress’s job to regulate this, because it regulates itself in every other industry in the world. If teams want to take the risk of an employee embarrasing the company (which pretty much no one in the real world does), that’s their call. It’s their risk to take.
Well… I would argue that being “on the clock” has a different meaning in baseball. A player’s body is his temple, and so many players are more or less contractually forbidden from motorcycle riding (Ron Gant, Jeff Kent) or playing other sports, like basketball (Aaron Boone). Most other job contracts don’t reserve the right to forbid your legal behavior when you’re not at work. (The armed services are different, obviously, for any number of reasons; to say the least, when you’re in country, you’re never not at work.)
A baseball player isn’t “on the clock” during the game and “off the clock” after the game. They’re training, watching game film, traveling, and not doing things that the team doesn’t want them to do. They pretty much belong to the team most of the time.
There is no particular reason that alcohol consumption during a game in which a starting pitcher isn’t going to appear is that much worse than that same pitcher consuming alcohol in the hotel room two hours before the game or two hours after the game. The reason that it struck a chord in this story is what it revealed about clubhouse disharmony, not the shock that baseball players were drinking beer.
This whole thing is about perception, at least that’s how I’ve always looked at it. You’re absolutely right that drinking during games you’re not playing in isn’t much diffrent that drinking right before or after the game…but the expectations should be much different from those on the outside looking in, and teams should recognize that.
Maybe ‘on the clock’ isn’t the best word to use. Whether you yourself consider training, studying film, lifting, etc to be part of a player’s job, like I do as well, most public perception is that baseball players are payed to play baseball games. We know that it involves much more than that, but when baseball players are most under the microscope, the time they are supposed to be fully involved with their job, is during games. And drinking during the times you’re most in the spotlight and expected to perform just isn’t accepted in any other corner of the workforce. We can go over the gray areas like team functions, pregame preparation, postgame while the media is still around, and other stuff…there are valid arguments whose time that actually is, but it’s hard to argue where a player’s focus should be during actual games, even if you’re not playing that specific day, in my mind. Teams should understand the message that sends to the public, regardless of whether it affects the game a damn bit or not.
I just don’t think that “most public perception” should particularly matter when it comes to restricting people’s rights. I think the only standard that should matter is what’s on the text of the contract and what actually affects performance.
If you’re not arguing about performance but about ballplayers being role models, and you think that that ballplayers shouldn’t drink a beer at the ballgame because their role models, I disagree with that, too. My dad would have a beer or a glass of wine with dinner and then go back and do research on his computer at home. Many people do that. He’s still my role model.
I think you’re going a little overboard calling a team considering a dry clubhouse “restricting people’s rights.” Rules like this exist all over the place, and it’s not a big deal anywhere else. I’m not allowed to drink at work, as are the vast majority of people. This is not a role model issue, at all. Your dad, in this case, sounds self employed. He’s allowed to make his rules, and he knows what he can do and still do his job the best he can. He knows it doesn’t affect his production, and there’s no problem with it. But I would also guess he isn’t sitting under a large public magnifying glass while he researches. I again guess he doesn’t have a number of employees working under him under that same magnifying glass. Companys have these rules because they often don’t know the tendencies of every single employee, especially a company in a spotlight as big as an MLB team. If your dad has a multi-billion dollar company who just failed to get that contract everyone assumed was a slam dunk for them, why even give the competitors and critics the option of pointing to 3 of your project leaders who were known to be drinking at work during important milestones in the project as your point of failure, even if the milestones were not their responsibility? It may have had 0 effect on performance, but in the public’s eyes, which is HUGELY important for your company, they can only see it that way. Why even give them the opportunity? It just doesn’t make sense.
If you’re small enough, or self employed, these rules can be much more lax and be just fine. But a baseball team is neither small nor under the radar in the least. It’s just not a good business model to let employees, mostly people you don’t know, do whatever they want and expect nothing to happen. This isn’t saying ‘no religion in the clubhouse’ or saying ‘only do what the man tells you,’ or something that is clearly not within reason. This is saying employees should not do something that often has a negative stigma associated with it, something most other companies already ban, during the times when it is most important for your company’s image.
And baseball teams, whether you think they should be or not, DO have a public perception and it’s very important to them.
I didn’t say that, however. As I wrote above: “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.”
When it comes to my father, I don’t understand your argument at all — he isn’t self-employed — so I’ll turn it around and talk about myself. I am a student and I’m paid a couple of bucks to write one post a week at Fangraphs. At mealtimes, I eat legal food and drink legal drinks. I hope that I will not be prohibited from doing so in the future.
Don’t flatter yourself. No one would give a shit if you smoked crack every day of your life. Your job is that meaningless. Different story with people who are paid to be elite physical performers and are engaging in activities known to reduce physical performance.
You seem to know damn well what I’m saying but are choosing to see the entire argument as invalid since I didn’t correctly infer the story about your dad (which actually apparently more applies to you, by your description, which should make the argument even more pertinent), which had little to do with the discussion in the first place when you brought it up. I said in the beginning MLB didn’t need to ban it and essentially it was up to the teams to regulate it, and they’re digging their own grave if they want to roll this dice allowing it. If you agree with that I don’t understand the point you’ve tried to make in the comments.
Evo34, it’s nice to see you again.
Dreamin’, you and I have different value judgments on this issue. You believe that a company’s valid prerogatives when it comes to public perception are so important that it should ban its employees from doing a variety of things that may mar that public perception. I grant that a company may ban its employees, I just disagree that, in many circumstances including this one, it should.
I don’t think we’re that far apart.
“So from here on out it’s going to have to be *liquor* and fried chicken.”
*grumble*grumble*grumble*
The Volstead Act came after the 18th amendment, it didn’t “lead to it”. The amendment specifically granted Congress the power to ban alcohol by passing appropriate laws (how quaint, nowadays they’d just pass it anyway, and if necessary get the Supreme Court to find the authority in a penumbra): the “appropriate law” they passed was the Volstead Act.
Thanks. The chronology’s a bit complicated, due to veto override and the time it took to ratify the amendment; I have clarified the verb used in the story.
The reason why the MLB should ban beer over clubs is pretty simple. If you drink on the job at regular work, you get fired. If you drink during a baseball game as a player, what’s the worst that happens right now? You can’t fire players. The worst that happens is a small team fine, if that, and maybe you sit on the bench for a couple days. I know there’s a slippery slope in here, but maybe teams should be allowed to get out of contract if they catch players drinking during a game. Literally fire them – that’s what happens to normal employees anyway.
My goodness, what a bunch of puritans we American office drones are. Are you fellas for real in insisting you’ve never had a drink (or puff) at work? Not saying I do it often, but it’s happened – even with my boss(es) on occasion!
I completely understand a MLB player who will not play on a particular day wanting to have a beer during the game – they play freakin’ games for living! Obviously, MLB players operate at a much higher rank than vendors – no judgement in that, merely an observation. Of course they can get away with things a vendor cannot.
If the BoSox had not blow it this September and were in the WS right now, this story of “drinking in the clubhouse, oh my!” would instead be an example of their loose-booty-chemistry and confidence. Beer in the clubhouse for all!
heh, no I am not drinking yet
Selig, Congress, the CBA . . . all that stuff is absolutely irrelevant to this issue, if it can indeed be called an issue. To my thinking, this is simple: if a team does not want its players drinking during or after games for any reason, they can institute that as team policy. If a player disagrees with this policy so strongly, he can choose to sign with another team. This is not all that complicated.
There are some jobs where you can essentially do what you want while you work: writer, Santa Claus, lead guitar . . . But there are lots more jobs that fall into the master-servant type of relationship. Masters make the rules. That’s life.
Servants generally don’t have collective bargaining rights. In America, many workers do, including all current major leaguers. (Though not nearly as many American workers have collective bargaining rights, proportionally, as was the case 50 years ago.)
The asinine thing is not the ban. Reasonable arguments can be made both for and against a ban. The asinine thing is the response, which follows the pattern of “something bad happened so we have to make a rule.” This is everywhere in society because we’re loathe to let people use common sense. One guy throws a Miller Lite bottle at a ballgame and now I have to drink my beer from plastic cups. That’s an asinine response. Ballplayers have been drinking beer at ballgames for a century but there’s one negative news story so now we have to make a rule. That’s an asinine response.
But they didn’t make a rule. That’s the crux of my article. They appeared to respond, and then decided to do nothing, which was the right thing to do.
I know. I’m offering a different perspective. You can make a reasonable argument against an MLB ban, but I think it’s hyperbolic to suggest that any employer banning alcohol at the place of work is “asinine.” The suggestion is asinine in the context in which and for the reason it was made.
You guys are all a bunch of pussies.
We always legislate for the worst possible scenario in the US.
I had to respond to this article after reading the comments on this board. Are the people in this forum nuts? Are you really comparing your daily job to playing professional baseball in the majors? Give me a break and get a clue people. Everybody wants to put an analogy to athletes and compare it to their 9-5 like they are similar environments. THEY AREN’T! ACCEPT IT ALREADY! I’m sensing jealousy in the comments I read because the argument is “Well, I can’t drink as a working citizen of a 9-5 job, so they (MLB players) shouldn’t be able to do it either.”
The practice of MLB clubs providing/allowing players to drink alcohol has been part of the game for decades! If a pitcher is on his off-day and he wants to knock back a couple during/before/after/whenever, what is the big deal? Now should he follow all responsible drinking guidelines before getting on the road. Yeah sure, because that has a potential affect on the safety of all. But these puritans who want to pretend like these players are doing something atrocious for drinking a couple of beers, I mean get over yourself already…..
I agree that any analogy to anyone’s job is going to attempt to take all of the grey out of the issue and make it black and white.
I don’t necessarily think that just because they’re MLB players, or because their job is so radically different they SHOULD be allowed to drink beer but for me personally, I think:1. This is a total non-issue and 2. People just need something to be mad about or are coming up with hard-lined opinions just to have strong opinions on the issue.
1. My employer serves alcohol at company retreats, pays for occasional happy hours, and wouldn’t frown on an employee having a beer during lunch. I don’t think my employer is that unusual in that the company treats us like adults, not children.
2. The pitchers were drinking on their days off.
3. Nobody said the pitchers got drunk and drove while intoxicated, or did anything else illegal.
The people freaking out about this should chill out. And if you’re mad because your boss wouldn’t let you drink, please don’t take it out on the rest of us.