I'm always torn by this kind of thing. I would much rather an organization give an employee the time and financial support that are needed to pursue treatment. If our most visible organizations and employers simply blacklist people who make mistakes, what does that say to everyone else? He will already have criminal and civil consequences. Why employment and social ones too?
This isn't to excuse the behavior. Indeed, I feel very strongly about stiff criminal penalties in drinking and driving cases. I just wish we could be a more merciful society with regard to mistakes and social/employment consequences.
How have the Twins blacklisted Allen? He was not fired, he was suspended (with pay) -- sounds like time and financial support are both there to me.
I guess the language about "policies and procedures of the club" doesn't sound like it's support. To me it sounded like "he'll be fired after we follow our process." I also think there's a difference between Rasmussen being named "interim pitching coach" and being used at the pitching coach "in the interim." That's just semantics, but it feels like decisive action.
If I'm wrong, and the Twins are actually going to help the guy out, good for them, him, and the rest of us. But the usual course of the world lately is to care more about the immediate PR effect on a corporate entity than it is to care about the hurting individual. That drives me crazy.
In general, I get where you are coming from. But if you work in a highly competitive, highly public position, then I think it's not unreasonable to expect a higher bar for good behavior.
I'll concede the higher bar for behavior itself, but not that it changes the appropriate response.
He is being paid during the suspension. At the same time, being suspended also sounds like the Twins are distancing themselves from Allen.
My guess is that the team knows he's had past issues with alcohol and gave him the job due to the quality of his work in the Rays' organization (arguably while sober).
Seems to me he's had plenty of opportunities to figure out how to live with this disease. The Twins have every reason to tread carefully. Hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
There was an interview last year I think where he stated he had been sober since 1994. I can't help but wonder why this year. I also can't help but consider the terrible record as being a causative event.
In that case, pun asks a very good question below.
Personally, I blame Joe.
I know it's very possible for this season to get even worse for the Twins, but does it have to?
This brings up a cause and effect question:
Have the Twins been bad because Allen's been drinking?
Or has he been drinking because the Twins have been so bad?
Sing the praises of pants?
Different episode, but absolutely where my mind was coming from.
I wonder about their obsession with pants.
The Twins have suspended Neil Allen indefinitely following a DUI.
I'm always torn by this kind of thing. I would much rather an organization give an employee the time and financial support that are needed to pursue treatment. If our most visible organizations and employers simply blacklist people who make mistakes, what does that say to everyone else? He will already have criminal and civil consequences. Why employment and social ones too?
This isn't to excuse the behavior. Indeed, I feel very strongly about stiff criminal penalties in drinking and driving cases. I just wish we could be a more merciful society with regard to mistakes and social/employment consequences.
How have the Twins blacklisted Allen? He was not fired, he was suspended (with pay) -- sounds like time and financial support are both there to me.
I guess the language about "policies and procedures of the club" doesn't sound like it's support. To me it sounded like "he'll be fired after we follow our process." I also think there's a difference between Rasmussen being named "interim pitching coach" and being used at the pitching coach "in the interim." That's just semantics, but it feels like decisive action.
If I'm wrong, and the Twins are actually going to help the guy out, good for them, him, and the rest of us. But the usual course of the world lately is to care more about the immediate PR effect on a corporate entity than it is to care about the hurting individual. That drives me crazy.
In general, I get where you are coming from. But if you work in a highly competitive, highly public position, then I think it's not unreasonable to expect a higher bar for good behavior.
I'll concede the higher bar for behavior itself, but not that it changes the appropriate response.
He is being paid during the suspension. At the same time, being suspended also sounds like the Twins are distancing themselves from Allen.
My guess is that the team knows he's had past issues with alcohol and gave him the job due to the quality of his work in the Rays' organization (arguably while sober).
I'll be honest, I didn't know his history, and probably wouldn't have been all that interested in it even if I had. But, he has admitted to pitching in the Show while blind drunk and using alcohol to steady his shaking hands. Rickey Henderson commented publicly that he counted Allen amongst the Yankees who cost the team the '88 pennant due to their drinking.
Seems to me he's had plenty of opportunities to figure out how to live with this disease. The Twins have every reason to tread carefully. Hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
There was an interview last year I think where he stated he had been sober since 1994. I can't help but wonder why this year. I also can't help but consider the terrible record as being a causative event.
In that case, pun asks a very good question below.
Personally, I blame Joe.
I know it's very possible for this season to get even worse for the Twins, but does it have to?
This brings up a cause and effect question:
Have the Twins been bad because Allen's been drinking?
Or has he been drinking because the Twins have been so bad?