I dont think DCU should hire wife beaters (Gazza) or felons

[dcuinvermont]

Originally posted by kirby94

However, I have to still say that I couldn't disagree more with this opinion that Ray & DC United should have to police Gazza's personal behavior when he hasn't done anything wrong. I doubt he was forced to go to the after party for one thing. I doubt that just because he goes to an after party that he is being placed in a situation beyond his control. I know many recovering alcoholics of the hardcore variety that can function in social situations without feeling the pressure to drink. I know some that cannot but are wise enough to avoid these situations.


Gazza's behavior is clearly only his to control. But lets ask the question, How many times have DC gone out drinking as a team this year? Is this the usual team thing? No. Then why choose the weekend that Gazza's here to go out drinking? A backyard picnic is a much better option.
They don't have to police him, but don't explicitly put him in a difficult situation. It's just weird that they'd choose this weekend to have a "night out on the town."

[revelation]

Originally posted by dcuinvermont


Gazza's behavior is clearly only his to control. But lets ask the question, How many times have DC gone out drinking as a team this year? Is this the usual team thing? No. Then why choose the weekend that Gazza's here to go out drinking? A backyard picnic is a much better option.
They don't have to police him, but don't explicitly put him in a difficult situation. It's just weird that they'd choose this weekend to have a "night out on the town."

Actually, this is becoming a regular thing. I've been to two so far this year at the Capital Lounge. I think there have been other post-game events as well. (although I'm not positive)

As someone who was actually there to witness Gazza drinking, I have NO FRICKEN' IDEA HOW MUCH HE HAD TO DRINK AND I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO ACTUALLY PRODUCE THAT INFORMATION! (This is directed at people who were not there but are making judgements based on what other posters have said, which to my knowledge has not included any information about the amount he drank.) My recollection is that he was drinking liquor (think tumblers rather than "shots") and quietly sitting in the corner of the room next to the bar downstairs. In my conversation with him, he did not slur nor come off as "drunk" in any way shape or form!

[Cruyff14]

I agree Revelation. Just because of one persons mind doesnt like it doesnt make it wrong.
Sign Gazzi
cheers

[RMDad]

I am saddened, but not surprised to hear of Gazza's apparent drinking. The reason I say apparent is, that when I go to social functions, I usually have a glass in hand, but a non-alcoholic drink. I wasnt there, and I don't know if the man drank or not.

The commonly accepted definition of sobriety and recovery includes total abstinence, of all mind or mood altering substances. For some this can include even sugar and coffee.

It is a recovering person's own responsibility to police his own sobriety. Whether that includes avoiding situations entirely, going in the company of other non-drinkers, or going despite the inherent risk, depends on the situation, how long in recovery, etc.. In my own recovery, particularly during the early years, I primarily avoided such situations, with the exception of "mandatory attendence" functions for work. In those cases, I made my appearence, and got the hell out of where I didnt belong.
In recovery, there is a saying.......
sit in a barbershop long enough, and you will get a haircut.

Gersman, I beg to differ that alcoholism is not a disease. It is so defined by the AMA, American College of Psychiatry, as well as other medical organizations around the world.
As the not so proud owner of a damn good case of this disease, I speak from experience, not a high horse or academic pedestal.

I suppose what the real question is, regarding DC United and Gazza, is the team willing to risk a serious drinking and behavioral relapse if they hire Paul?
I am looking at the lost productivity and public liability angles here.
I can't fault United administration or Ray Hudson for wanting to be damned sure they arent buying a pig in a poke, given cap space issues, and the kind of money Gazza will draw.
Obviously, MLS and United are very concerned that this league maintain a family oriented positive image.
Certainly a league as young as this can do without the scandals, off-field antics and negative publicity of other leagues around the world.
Soccer in America is primarily, at this juncture, a youth sport, so it follows to me that a "wholesome" public image is in the league's best interest.

Mark

[Barbara]

Originally posted by GersMan


Wink duly noted, but no, nothing changes about that article.


:) I guess it was this....


Originally posted by GersMan


ARE YOU FRIGGIN KIDDING ME???????????????



.... that made me think there might be some second thoughts.

All caps and a bazillion question marks.

[Lowecifer]

Originally posted by saroccer


We're all a bunch of freaks ;)

Speak for yourself....








I'm a SUPERfreak, actually.

;)

[Autogolazo]

I'll repeat what I said in another thread--are you guys rooting for a team or for the league's image?

If you're a DC United fan, how can you turn down the chance for a shakeup, anything to make a difference in the current putrid state of your team? Even Etch says so, and Gazza would be cramping his space in midfield.

Secondly, do you honestly think Gazza would be the only alcoholic in MLS if he signs?

Those of you who are alcoholics should know, by the sheer numbers, that this is ridiculous.

Admit it--this is all about the fear of bad press. That, to me, does not seem sufficient reason to prejudge anyone. Diallo effectively ended Mike Amann's career with a vicious intentionally violent challenge, and he's still playing to cheering throngs, while Gazza gets judged? I don't understand--maybe you can explain your hypocrisy to me.

[Dave Brother]

Sign Gazza. If things don't work out, that's all up to him.

Give the man his second chance.

Nuff said.

[GersMan]

Originally posted by RMDad

The commonly accepted definition of sobriety and recovery includes total abstinence, of all mind or mood altering substances. For some this can include even sugar and coffee.

It is a recovering person's own responsibility to police his own sobriety. Whether that includes avoiding situations entirely, going in the company of other non-drinkers, or going despite the inherent risk, depends on the situation, how long in recovery, etc.. In my own recovery, particularly during the early years, I primarily avoided such situations, with the exception of "mandatory attendence" functions for work. In those cases, I made my appearence, and got the hell out of where I didnt belong.
In recovery, there is a saying.......
sit in a barbershop long enough, and you will get a haircut.

Gersman, I beg to differ that alcoholism is not a disease. It is so defined by the AMA, American College of Psychiatry, as well as other medical organizations around the world.
As the not so proud owner of a damn good case of this disease, I speak from experience, not a high horse or academic pedestal.

Mark

Mark - I appreciate the tone of your post, even as I disagree with some of its content. I think some of this "commonly accepted definition" is based on subjective opinion. One person says a recovering alcoholic needs to abstain from drink entirely, another says he shouldn't smoke or eat chocolate either. My experience with alcoholism is growing up with a father who would come home drunk nearly every night. It had a very negative effect on our family, and lasted for a long, long time. But, a point in time came, after I was no longer living at home, that my father apparently decided enough was enough, and just stopped drinking. He didn't seek counseling. He didn't take medication. He still goes to clubs that serve alcohol, he even drinks O'Douls at times, and seemingly has no interest in drinking. The appeal of it apparently has gone for him and he hasn't taken a drink in close to 10 years now.

I respect what you wrote about not wanting to be in certain environments, and I don't doubt that this is effective for you. I'm just saying that one prescription doesn't appear to fit everybody - and I go back to what I said about defining who is an "alcoholic" and who isn't.

Remember, what I originally said is: "It's called a disease, but people make a decision to quit doing it, so it's not a disease in the sense cancer or MS are."

With all respect to the AMA (and I won't feign respect for the very much of the psyciatric profession) I stand by that. What other disease is cured by the person simply choosing to not do something anymore? I know that things like diabetes and heart disease can be MODIFIED by controlling diet, but it is not the same thing. Similarly, some of the physical effects of alcohol abuse, particularly liver ailments, don't go away when a person quits drinking. But the only "cure" for alcoholism is that a person decides to quit drinking.

There are people who can drink a beer and it not affect their behavior. When you drink 5 or 6, it does. Some people do this a lot, some only very occasionally and some never. Defining when this becomes alcoholism is very subjective and so, I reject the idea that it is a disease (which tends to carry the connotation of "I couldn't help but do it"). It is a person with a strong tendency to make a very poor decision of how to deal with something bothering them (and I don't say that self-righteously, because all of us have our shortcomings and weaknesses, no matter how public or private). No doubt that environmental factors, including upbringing, have an effect on this, but the person still has to make the decision, and as you know, no one else can do that for you.

So anyway, that's where I'm coming from on this. I think we should avoid blanket characterizations, as well as rushing to judgment on this. I was quite surprised to hear he was "drinking shots," but am hearing some different takes on that now. I understand all the potential concerns, and the things you said about league image, but at this point I'd still say it's a risk worth taking.

[kirby94]

I'm sorry dcuinvermont, I think I left my most important point out, since I was in a rush to go home. But I was under the impression that DC players routinely go out (not every game, but a lot) for both unorganized and organized ...uh..., get togethers, that often involve alcohol. Moreno & Etch have been known even to attend BB post game tailgates. I guess I was thinking that Sat. night was more of a regular than irregular thing for DC, and wasn't just b/c Gazza was in town. After over 10 years of admitted, documented, troubled behavior, one night in a DC bar isn't going to confuse or trick a 35 yr old man who wants to put the past behind him.

No doubt if they organized a party in a bar just for Gazza, that could be called stupid. Or a stroke of genius? We (well, they) showed Gazza who they were and he showed them who he was. Its out on the table, as if he said, "This is what I'm going to do, can you guys live with it?"

I think several of us were under the initial impression that Gazza no longer drank (despite the non-stop jokes about it), but now we know he does or he might. Take a chance or not? Thats Ray's decision I guess.

[andylovesoccer]

Originally posted by GersMan
Remember, what I originally said is: "It's called a disease, but people make a decision to quit doing it, so it's not a disease in the sense cancer or MS are."

With all respect to the AMA (and I won't feign respect for the very much of the psyciatric profession) I stand by that. What other disease is cured by the person simply choosing to not do something anymore? I know that things like diabetes and heart disease can be MODIFIED by controlling diet, but it is not the same thing. Similarly, some of the physical effects of alcohol abuse, particularly liver ailments, don't go away when a person quits drinking. But the only "cure" for alcoholism is that a person decides to quit drinking.

It is the same thing, actually. Sure, no one can just quit cancer or MS, so you are right that alcoholism isn't always a terminal or lifelong thing. But, heart disease can be controlled by making a decision (to stop smoking, stop eating certain things, drinking, etc), just like alcoholism can be controlled by making a decision (not to drink). And just because an alcoholic isn't drinking at the moment, doesn't mean they don't suffer from the disease still. "Simply not taking a drink..." isn't so simple for a lot of people. AIDS and other STD's can be controlled by making a decision. IV drug users get diseases from the decision to shoot up. There are just certain lifestyles that prompt later ill-health. Like patients with other conditions, some people have to spend time in a hospital for treatment due to alcoholism.

The definition of disease, even the not-so-commonly accepted ones, runs the gamet from mental and social disorders to plagues and the common cold. I would have to say that alcoholism is as much a disease as most other so labeled conditions.

[GersMan]

Then as a society we are changing the definition of disease (as we are many other words).

In the examples you give, the changed behaviors do not elminate the disease. You still have heart disease when you quite eating chicken wings. You still have AIDS even if you abstain from certain behaviors.

I didn't say a behavior couldn't aid you in contracting a disease, but that's not the case with alcoholism (addiction would fit much better).

IN this instance, cirrohsis would be a disease contracted due to drinking. But alcoholism is not. You might call it an addiction, but I don't think it should be classified as a disease in the traditional sense.

And really, it doesn't matter what you call it. It ruins people's lives either way. I just reject the notion that a person can't help himself, because in truth, he can.

[Dave Brother]

Let me say, I WANT Gazza here.

With that out of the way, I can not belive Ray of all people would let Big Paul get into a situation like he did at the Lounge.

I tend to belive Mr. Revelation when he says it happened like it happened. That said, I think Paul needs to rethink his hangout's. I recomend Fresh Fields off of Wisconson Ave.