OK, looks like I need to clarify something. Andrew Johnson at his Defensive Indifference blog accused me of dropping an unsubstantiated allegation that Vicente Padilla has a drinking problem in my chat yesterday. I just want to point out that Padilla’s addiction to alcohol is no secret; he was driving drunk in Nicaragua two years ago with a friend in the passenger’s seat, got in an accident, and caused his friend’s death. Here’s an article from a Nicaraguan newspaper that says that he was drunk at the time of the accident and driving over 150 km/hour, and implies that the whole incident was smoothed over by local police. He was also arrested in Dallas in 2006 on suspicion of DUI. Now, on top of that, I’ve talked to plenty of people in baseball who’ve confirmed that Padilla has a problem, but that seems like icing on this cake. If you drive drunk and kill your friend, and yet get behind the wheel drunk again a few months later, isn’t that the very definition of a drinking problem?
→ January 25, 2008
→ By
→ By
Vicente Padilla.
Trackbacks
-
[…] UPDATE: Keith Law picks up on us over at The Dish and sheds some more light on his comment yesterday. I found this part in the comments section most revealing: “I meant that Padilla’s abuse of alcohol is severe enough to diminish his baseball value. He is not the only alcoholic in the game, but he is (to me) the one whose value is hurt the most by it.” And I just want to clarify, I didn’t think what Keith said was “unsubstantiated,” but I was very surprised he mentioned it, because most writers these days don’t seem to have the guts to mention that sort of thing. Maybe in the wake of Josh Hancock’s death more of them should reveal stuff like this. Surely Padilla isn’t the only drunk in the game. […]
I checked Merriam-Webster – and yes it is! Bigger problem in baseball, alcohol or PEDs?
considering peds (generally) only affect the individual, i’d say alcohol > peds.
then again, there’s the chris benoit stuff… meh.
Gotta disagree there. Yes, drinking and driving is a “problem” but 2 incidents do not an alcoholic make. Isn’t it possible to have a drinking problem without driving drunk? And then by that logic wouldn’t anyone who has ever been drunk be an alcoholic?
I’m not saying he doesn’t have a problem; the people you’ve talked to certainly know a lot more than I do.
But citing two specific incidents, regardless of how stupid and reprehensible they are, is not evidence of a “problem” (in the sense that the problem you’re talking about is one of prolonged alcohol abuse).
Jon — I’d say equating “drinking problem” with “alcoholism” as we typically understand it is a bit narrow of a definition. Even if I only drink once a year — say, at the SABR convention — but each and every I do I end up (a) getting into a fight with Aaron Gleeman; (b) streaking through a presentation on SB% in the Negro Leagues; and (c) vomiting on Rob Neyer’s shoes, yeah, I probably have a problem.
Maybe I should go to SABR this year…
Unless you are caught DUI at least 62 times, PED will always be the biggest problem in baseball, as that is what has destroyed the mystical power of the number 61.
If we only counted wins and losses, like in soccer and the NFL (quick, what’s the record for most yards thrown in a career… the record for most TDs scored…. and does anyone care?), PED in baseball would have as much impact on the social conscience of sportswriters as it does in football.
Therefore, the blame for PED goes squarely on the shoulders of statisticians.
Keith, just to clarify, I didn’t think what you said was false or unsubstantiated and I’m sure this is one of those things that is well known to some folks within baseball, I was just shocked you mentioned it so matter-of-factly and found it interesting, especially given the fact that your colleague mentioned last year that one of the pitchers at the infamous 2002 All-Star Game was too drunk to pitch or continue pitching and Padilla was the last guy to appear for the NL.
“Maybe I should go to SABR this year… ”
What happens in Cleveland STAYS in Cleveland . . .
Craig, then I agree. I’ll admit that I immediately equated “drinking problem” with “alcoholism”. I will say that the context had something to do with it – Keith’s quote was “Padilla’s got the stuff to be a #3, but his command isn’t good and he has a drinking problem.”
I think in that context, that the implication of “drinking problem” to mean (some sort of) alcoholism is reasonable. Keith, is that what you meant?
Put another way – if a baseball player drank once a year but each time did something awful, this (short of any legal repercussions) would have little to no effect on his ability to perform as a ballplayer.
But take Merriam-Webster’s definition of alcoholism – “continued excessive or compulsive use of alcoholic drinks”. Here the emphasis is on _continued_ and _compulsive_ – if it were true, this would surely impact Padilla’s ability to perform as a #3 starter.
Keith, if that’s not what you meant, I apologize.
Judging by the way Padilla pitches in general, I was under the impression he was drunk before all games.
Nobody owes me any apologies.
I meant that Padilla’s abuse of alcohol is severe enough to diminish his baseball value. He is not the only alcoholic in the game, but he is (to me) the one whose value is hurt the most by it.
alcohol hurts pitchers much more than hitters which backs up keith’s assertion. being hung can sometimes help hitters by not allowing one to overthink at the plate.
and the alcoholism thing is an and/or proposition. even if one only drinks once a year but cannot control the amount they drink (the compulsively drink part) they are still considered an alcohol by most definitions (of course this does indicate that in a persons past they drank excessively quite often). don’t have to be nick cage in leaving las vegas to be an alchy.
I didn’t mean simply to Padilla. I have heard from articles and people that issues with abusing alcohol was a big problem among those in the game, but it is taboo to talk about, therefore PEDs seem more prevalent. Padilla is not the only one to be caught in recent years.
– “continued excessive or compulsive use of alcoholic drinks”. Here the emphasis is on _continued_ and _compulsive_ – if it were true, this would surely impact Padilla’s ability to perform as a #3 starter.
No the emphasis is on continued OR compulsive. In other words, maybe he doesn’t even drink often, but he still may be an alcoholic.
To be honest, my concern isn’t the frequency that one drinks, but the way they act under the influence. I’m sure many of us have been to college, and my senior year I was out and drinking often enough that it would probably qualify as having a drinking problem. But I never acted irresponsible; I never drove, was disrespectful to women, or got into a needless fight. I was out enjoying myself and the end of one time in my life when it was ok to do that. On the other hand, you could have someone who only drinks on the weekend, but gets exceedingly inebriated and acts like a total ass. Drunk driving is a perfect example… in my opinion, it’s pretty obvious which of these different behaviors is preferable.
Keith – Enjoy reading your blog, but this is not your strongest argument.
Padilla may or may not have a drinking problem, but your use of the column from the Nicaraguan newspaper is weak. I am paraphrasing, but in speaking about the car accident, the columnist states that Padilla had to be drunk, because who in his right mind drives 150 km/hr(95 mph). Sorry, but people drive fast for many reasons. Being drunk is just one of them. It is possible he was drunk that night, but no evidence (e.g., police report, witness statements) is offered by your source that he was.
The sentence says that “Padilla and a friend were involved in an accident in which the friend was killed and Padilla survived miraculously because he was wearing a seat belt, since the car was wrecked due to speeding, and there is absolute certainty that he had had an excess of liquor, because no one in possession of his five senses drives 150 km/hour.”
That’s a direct accusation that he was drunk. And we know that he was drunk at the wheel again a few years (I said months above, but it was years) later. And the Nuevo Dia article alleges at the top that “alcohol is behind all of his mysteries.”
Regarding Malcolm, I think this is another example of how society “in general” (this is a stretch and I have no evidence that the general population agrees with this but I think they do, whether they like to admit it or not) would probably value athletes differently than friends/family/themselves. I would prefer my favorite teams players to be “that guy” a time or two a month instead of partying hard but not at “that guy” levels so that they only screw up their performance a couple times a month. Which is in direct contrast from what I would value in those around me.
This is similar to the steroids issue, if players taking steroids helped the Cubs win a world series I wouldn’t give two shits but I would strongly advise anyone I know to not do that stuff, due to it “not being worth it”.
so I don’t think anyone would care or even really know about Padilla’s drunkness except for the fact that he has wasted all his talent. I kind of feel like a drunk Posnanski after this comment.
I think it’s silly to break down what Keith meant on an ESPN chat. He gets hundreds of questions per minute and races through them as fast as he can. But now that we’re here, I see no problem in how Keith worded it in his chat. Drunk driving at least twice is a problem.
If you drive drunk you have a drinking problem.
If you drive drunk and kill your friend, then you have a really big drinking problem.
If after driving drunk and killing your friend, you continue to drive drunk, can we call the person anything other then sick? Would that sickness be called anything other then alcoholism?
I cant imagine a healthy person would act in such a fashion.
Much better job of translating than I did, but my point is the same.
The columnist accuses him of being drunk based on the fact that he was driving too fast. He provides no evidence of this beyond his assumption that someone driving that fast is not in complete control of his five senses.
If you are going to accuse someone of having a drinking problem based on a pattern of behavior, the least you can do is use verifiable examples. I just don’t believe that using this columnist as a source is up to your standards. I haven’t read anything else this guy has written, but his column about Padilla was gossip-columnist level at best.
It’s interesting to note that the Gammons blog entry that mentions why the ’02 All-Star game was stopped has since been removed from the site. I actually had a comment on that blog that the unnamed player was Padilla.
There are plenty of examples of great talents being ruined alcohol, and it seems that the vast majority of those stories, unless they become unavoidably public, go untold. Personally, I have a little bit of a hard time figuring out how exactly I feel about this sort of stuff, because I’m certainly no teetotaler, and absolutely there are varying degrees to which alcohol affects different individuals who indulge themselves too much. I’d say outright that it’s nobody’s business (until you get behind the wheel or do something equally stupid)… but when you hear of things like Keon Clark having never played sober while he was in the NBA, or if you know the story of NHLer Brian Fogarty (heartbreakingly told here: http://espn.go.com/magazine/vol5no20fogarty.html), you see that there are definitely places where it’s appropriate to at least acknowledge this kind of behavior– as well as the sports whose culture condones it or turns a blind eye to it.
I mentioned Keith’s Padilla comment on my own blog, but only for a larf because our contributers are all unashamed drunks. Mostly, the subject of alcohol in sports remains a pretty big grey area. To this point, most of that kind of stuff is kept in the inner circle, which I guess is why– even though it’s on the public record– the commment about Padilla has caused a little bit of a stir here. Is it possible that things like this will come more sharply into focus if the paparazzification of coverage of athletes lives continues the way it has for, say, Tom Brady or Tony Romo? Granted, maybe that only looks like a trend because those particular guys are dating celebrities and supermodels, but it’s definitely an interesting subject, and one that has hardly been dealt with in public to this point– outside of European soccer, that is (I mean… tell that to Paul Gascoigne).
why are we even arguing about this? padilla’s excessive drinking has been known for as long as he has been in baseball. he is a known boozehound, which has cost him friends, jobs, and production.
i thought this was a commonly known thing, as it has come up in every discussion of whether a team should trade for/sign padilla. i’ve got some really good friends in philly, and padilla’s drinking problem was well known to phillies fans. why are people getting hyped up about the definition of a “drinking problem”? i’m not judging vicente as i enjoy a cocktail or four once in a while (would prob judge for the whole killing a person thing), but it is pretty obvious the dude has a drinking problem.
I don’t have a problem with what Keith said. His views are informed by what he has read, and what other scouts and front office personnel relate to him. If there is a general view (or even a minority view) that Padilla has a drinking problem, that will affect his value and his ability to reach his potential as a baseball player (because he will be given fewer opportunities). AND, if it actually is true that he has a drinking problem, well then that will affect his baseball value directly, perhaps considerably, unless he is David Wells.