Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Here are the penalties for OWVI in MI
Operating While Visibly Impaired
It's essentially a "half OWI" most of the time. Pretty much it takes the OWI penalties and cuts them in half, so it is cheaper, usually shorter and less restrictive. He will probably get a year of probation + community service in lieu of any jail time. It depends on the judge, of course.
EDIT: To be clear, I mean half in terms of a legal punishment, not half in terms of how bad the crime is/was.
So does that mean he only gets suspended half the game? And if he only plays half the game, does he only get half a free sno-cone at the end?
Free snocone is an impermissible benefit, per the NCAA, even if you play whole game.
could restrict him leaving the state too. We need to get that clarified. If it was Judge Smails, he could not leave the state after he spent a week in jail.
He gets to play the entire game, but with only half of his equipment.
and by the way...niiiiice beaver.
I think Rawls starts and Fitz misses the first half. I personally think he shouldnt play at all
The punishment and deterrent are determined by the laws of the State of Michigan and its municipalities. You know, the same for every non University of Michigan football player.
I would be careful using "we" and implicating all UM fans or even all mgoblog denizens. If by "we" you meant you, then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge Sparty or whomever about their situations. It might save you some of those aneurysms.
this argument all over again in a new thread!
How about suspending him for the second game. That way it wouldn't impact the team as much. [Second game easier than Alabama.] It was Fitz who is subject to punishment, not the team.
I'm conflicted on this issue;
On one hand I say 1 game suspension as you've said this is something we rag on other teams (specifically MSU) for.
However, the crime occured in the offseason, it was his first discipinary offense that we know about and I would be ok with a 1 half suspension as long as Hoke came out and said that Fitz has already completed 100 hours of community service, attended a MADD outreach etc. basically more than just "he ran a bunch of stairs".
PS we can never be as bad as MSU though with Dantonio picking up Chris L. Rucker from jail and having him in uniform that Saturday.
It's something Fitz hasn't done yet.
why is this downvoted? the point of a courst system is to set penalties it feels are worth the crime. If I as a student get caught drunk driving i don't get suspended from class for a week, you dont get suspended from your job, not sure why we think college football coaches need to add punishment that the court system unless they think it would be beneficial to the character of the player when nobody else is expected to have punishment beyond the courts added on.
As an alum, if I see Fitz playing this Saturday, I will be very very disappointed. The university is greater than a single game and a very public embarrassment like this needs a very public punishment. I really don't care about some sort of "private" punishment handed out by Hoke, that just makes us sound like Penn St. I really hope the coach does the right thing.
I am still waiting for UM to forfeit a game for the whole Ted Kaczynski episode.
Shouldn't we be stripped of all victories while he was attending Michigan?
I don't understand why the Ted K view, but especially the general non-suspension views, seem to get so much traction.
1. Problems With The Ted K Analogy.
The point of Fitz's punishment is to create a meaningful cost for some unwanted behavior for those who attend Michigan. This has nothing to do with penalizing the Michigan football program itself, though that is one unfortunate consequence. A suspension is only about penalizing Fitz in significant ways to uphold a desired standard of Fitz's off-field conduct.
So I must disagree that this is a sound analogy. Ted K wasn't a student at Michigan when he committed his crimes. The University could not create any meaningful cost toTed K for what he did. As such, with the analogy, the consequence of penalizing the University is improperly twisted into the point of the act--and not some unfortunate consequence.
2. Generally and Responses.
What Makes Michigan Different. Playing for any college football team is voluntary. At Michigan, the priviledge of playing depends on what you do on the field and off. In my opinion, combined with a tradition of winning. this is what really makes the whole Michigan Arrogance thing at all tenable. I definitely buy into that--it's exactly why I'm a Michigan fan.
Now I can agree that articulating this Michigan Way precisely is difficult to do. The whole 'RichRod Michigan Man Definition War' proved that to me. But I bloody know there is a culture of penalizing off-field indiscretions. And I know that if you get a DUI at Michigan, you sit a game. I've been reminded of both on the blog, and I think the Twitter reactions from those who cover Michigan football echo the same. That's how things have been done for as long as I've followed the program, and I happen to agree. I'll argue for why I agree below.
Responding to "There is no connection between sitting a game and getting a DUI." This is sort of addressed above, but just to be clear: the connection is punitive, and hopefully, corrective. The point is to punish Fitz for not upholding a standard of conduct. Optimally, missing a game leads Fitz to some meaningful introspection.
Responding to "College football is a business." While that's true, it's only one part of college football. College football is also about college, and academic priorities aside, college itself is very much about growing up. Especially when considering that some of these kids may not come from the most stable backgrounds (not to mention the demigod social status which creates more lenient standards and consequences for them in high school), this 'molding of men' stuff really is important to one aim of going to college.
But let us say it's only a business. Even then, it is in Michigan's (especially, long-term) interest to cultivate responsible individuals. Law-abiding football players don't miss NFL football games due to jail time and arguably have fewer off-field distractions. No matter what business model you apply ("College is just a farm system for the NFL" or "Michigan is only out to make money for itself"), it can be in the football program's interest to develop character. When coupled with a tradition of winning that draws big-time talent, Michigan's formula, from a business standpoint, makes sense to me.
Responding to "Agreeing that Fitz Should Be Suspended = Puritanical." Having Fitz sit a game is not asking for some particularly narrow or harsh interpretation of Michigan's MO. It's completely in keeping with how Michigan has dealt with DUIs in the past. And there are no known reasons to make this DUI exceptional (not that it matters to the law, really). As soon as Fitz's .12 was legally unrefuted, it's a common Michigan practice that he sits a game.
Responding to "Michigan shouldn't have this policy of sitting players for one game." Michigan is witholding playing time when Michigan state laws that carry a certain heft in degree or kind are broken. Michigan's standard is the law, which roughly acts as a summary of the moral views of those who live in Michigan. That's as not-arbitrary as it gets. So, if you're going to penalize a conduct--from skipping class to cheating on your girlfriend--breaking the law should be pretty unimpeachable.
Games are the most meaningful to players. Sure running stairs hurt. And missing a practice can suck, too. But NFL teams heavily weight production in their evaluations--that's why games are where it's at. How much of this meaningful thing you withold is a good question. At one extreme, an entire season would be too crazy for most people. One game, especially a high-profile game like 'Bama, carries a decent sting. I can see some room for debate here. But to not withold a game is to not have a meaningful punishment.
In sum: if you break a meaningful standard of conduct (the law) and you want to punish it meaningfully (sitting games), then sitting Fitz for a game is a good idea.
Responding to "Michigan has no right to enforce on-field penalties for off-field discretions." A player's participation with the football program is at the discretion of the coaches and administration. Your quarrel is with the NCAA or whoever is in charge of making that a fact--not Michigan's coaches.
Responding to "DUIs aren't a big deal." Please see the first paragraph of the previous italicized point. There may be arguments for why this isn't a big deal, but the expressed will of Michigan citizens disagree. I don't think this is the place to argue whether DUIs are really a big deal, and I don't need to. When the law gives you a standard, it makes sense to sync your penalties with that standard and not pick which laws you really agree with when penalizing players.
Responding to "This is different from MSU, 'Bama, &c." If Fitz plays, how is it different? If a kid breaks the law (in a manner described above), the coaches have a choice to punish this with game time or they don't. Michigan punishes meaningfully, and the above-listed thug-factories do not. If Michigan doesn't punish it, there's no difference when it comes to punishing off-field indiscretions.
Responding to "Trust in Hoke." Everyone errs, and if a fanbase doesn't stand up for a program's values, leadership has fewer penalties for violating those values. There is one piece of information that Hoke and I both know, and in this case, it's pretty much all we need to know: the kid blew a .12. It's an uncontested and key piece of evidence. Historically, at Michigan, that means he sits a game (and I've addressed why above).
3. Conclusion
The Michigan I know--the Michigan that I think mgoblog writes about--cares about both the ends and means of winning. This is what makes Michigan awesome and worth cheering for, in my opinion. Of course Michigan doesn't do this perfectly, but I believe that they try sincerely and do better than most.
The consequentialist argument should satisfy some. It is in Michigan's interests, especially in the long run (please see the business argument), to punish off-field behavior. But I really believe in this molding of men stuff for non-consequentalist reasons. If you get a few years to connect with someone's life through something they find meaningful (football), and your moral standard is the law, why wouldn't you? Another force influencing kids to be law-abiding citizens doesn't strike me as a bad thing.
I would say an administrator level conspiracy to cover up years of child molestation is quite a bit different than letting Fitz play two months after he got popped for an OWVI.
Furthermore, as an alum, I'd rather beat Alabama while playing a perfecly eligible Fitz and have to deal with non-UM fans complaining that we played Fitz, as opposed to losing and taking the moral high ground. Quite frankly, I find the moral high ground to be a cop-out. We're Michigan because we win and develop high quality men, not because we suspend our players when they make youthful mistakes.
What happens if Fitz plays AND we get creamed?
That is not what I meant when I said Penn St. I was referring to how JoePa declared to the administration that only he can punish the players and only he knows what is the proper punishment for any football player. Keeping punishment for such a public incident under wraps just reeks of that kind of behavior and it is not something we should be advocating. I am not for making all punishments public (especially for minor team violations and privacy related violations like grades), but you need to be open and transparent so that a culture of secrecy does not take a foothold.
If the University wants to punish Fritz, by all means they can. Coach Hoke knows the situation, knows Fitz, and knows his program better than all of us. Therefore, he should be responsible for doling out the football related punishments. If the university wants to tack on additional punishment, I agree that Hoke cannot step in and stop it. But no one is suggesting that Hoke do this.
Furthermore, I'd rather have a culture of secrecy take foothold rather than a culture that submits to public pressure from us interneters and the likes of Drew Sharp. Now I know many fans, myself included, have ragged on MSU for the handelling of the Winston, Rucker, et al., situations. I think many of the people in favor of suspending Fitz are because of said ragging. This is not a sufficient reason to suspend Fitz. Furthermore, if we want to feel superior to the likes of MSU, OSU, SEC, etc., we just got to beat them.
Maybe stocks in the Diag?
That Penn St. comparison is awful, man. Just the worst.
Driving while impaired is no little thing. If we're honest about "This is Michigan", we should be happy if Hoke only suspends him for one game. If we were opening with UMASS, we woulnd't be having this discussion. Just because it's Alabama, shouldn't change the analysis.
the fact that it's Bama shouldn't change the analysis. He SHOULD play regardless of who the team plays Saturday, as long as he's paid a real price so far, and Hoke said he has. End of story to me, and I'd say that for any team, not just mine, for a first offense under these circumstances.
Just saw him play a concert at our town's outdoor arena. I was definitely leery going in but he had more hits than I remembered and still has a great voice.
Just to be clear.
He operated a vehicle impaired (drunk) and should sit. This has bigger implications than one non-conference game (albeit a big one!) in the second season of a coach's tenure.
Sit him, Coach. We're not the SEC. Or Sparty,
from drunk....
1) I believe it was .12
2) The law says otherwise, and I've learned that the law tends to govern on, you know, legal stuff.
Also worth noting that the state of Michigan is not some absurd teetotaling outlier on this one. There is nowhere in the entire world where it is legal where it is legal to drive at .11 or .12. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country).
So while it might not be drunk-drunk, for driving purposes there seems to be a consensus that it is plenty drunk.
Is this post a joke? Being a big person doesn't change how blood alcohol content affects the body. A .12 is the same thing for a 105 pound woman and a 300 pound man. The only difference is how much alcohol it takes to get there.
How dare you attack his obviously well thought-out post with the gypsy magic that is logic and reason.
Hence why it is a relevant measurement for some whose 220 or 105 lbs. What you are really arguing then is that someone whose 220 has to drink more to reach .12. However, talking on a cellphone causes people to drive with the equivelant impaired skills of a .12 blood acohol level.
how BAC levels are set. Back when BAC levels were set based on real world data from tens of thousands of traffic stops, below or at .1 was considered to be unimpaired. Above that limit the officer was to assess if the driver was impaired. Now these limits are set politically and have little to do with actual impairment. So the correctness of your statement that .11 or .12 is "plenty drunk" is dependent on how an individual reacts to alcohol. Some poeple are plenty drunk at .05 others are not impaired at .12 or even .15.
This is not really relevent because Fitz plead guilty to visible impairment. He was impaired and should have realized it and not driven.
Not sure about Michigan but in California, .08 to .19 is "under the influence" and .2 or higher is "drunk". The later is much more difficult to plead down from and has harsher penalties.
Is stupid.
What the hell does Operating While Visibly Impaired mean?
Here is the difference according to Michigan.gov. Sounds similar, just a way to take a plea.
Operating While Visibly Impaired (OWVI) means that because of alcohol or other drugs, your ability to operate a motor vehicle was visibly impaired.
Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) includes 3 types of violations:
Still not seeing a difference there. Maybe I'm impaired. And the last two points under OWI... wut?
I think the last two points are degrees of OWI. Ie. tipsy vs. real drunk
does not require chemical confirmation of a certain amount of a substance in your system. It is typically the "get out of jail free" card given to first time offenders, but really impaired is the "circumstantial evidence" version of under the influence. When you see somebody charged with refusing a breath test (don't do it) they are typically also charged with impaired (unless a warrant was obtained in time for a blood test which is the case nearly 99% of the time and then the charge is under the influence anyway).
Damn man. One adjournment would have been nice Judge.
and Will Campbell was blocking the sidewalk and Fitz couldn't see around him.
We can argue semantics all you want. Bottom line: Fitz did a very bad thing. Because of said bad thing, he will have consequences. Consequences = missed playing time. He's not playing. Hoke said as much yesterday in the roundtable with reporters. Everybody seemed to overlook his comments.
Perhaps you can direct to these comments? He seemed entirely ambigious from what I read.
Do you feel caught between giving your team the best chance to win vs. making sure the players pay the consequences for breaking the law?
“Well, I think whenever you’re in this position. You’ve got to make decisions that are best for the program. And that doesn’t mean for one specific team, it means for the program. It means for the identity and the character of the program that you represent. Are they easy decisions? No. Are they decisions you want to make because you love the kids? No. But you have to make them.”
It seems you’re in a very uncomfortable spot.
“I’m comfortable with what I want to do. Very comfortable with that. Talking to all you guys about it? No. That’s not comfortable because it’s talking about two kids who are sons to us and made bad decisions.”
Do you know what you’re going to do?
“Oh I probably have an idea.”
He never says that Fitz is going to sit anywhere in his answers. He said he has tough decisions, and that he makes them for the program. You are just inferring that means that he won't play, but Hoke doesn't necessarily mean that is what the punishment is. No one knows what Fitz has been doing for the past 1 month + for punishment. If he gets in trouble for this in February, or in May, does he still have to miss game time? I think punishment can be arbitrary, and if Hoke and the staff/AD feel comfortable with the punishmet that Fitz has received, than who am I to judge.
2+2=...5?
he's sitting and we will all be proud of our coach. but i also agree with coach not to let alabama have any information they don't get as a matter of course
it equals 3. But on Tuesdays after 2 it equal 5...at least until 6, where it changes to 7.
This doesn't matter. It's good for Fitz's record, but it doesn't change the fact he got behind the wheel intoxicated. He needs to sit.
I agree 100%. You hold yourself to a different standard as a UM football player. Hoke can't set a lenient precedent like this in one of his first disciplinary decisions of his tenure.
Higher standard than who? I think most coaches play him in this scenario. Also this is not one of Hoke's first disciplinary decisions here..Kellen Jones, Stonum, Furman (even though he was not guilty).
All that said Is still think Hoke sits him against Bama
That's for sure, it would be a shitstorm if he did. Even if we won, the focus would be on Fitz playing and it would be a distraction and bad PR move. Let alone the precendent.
Maybe he doesn't play the first half of any non-conference game? Maybe he doesn't start all season, but plays in every game? Maybe it's a 1 game suspension? Maybe it's 2.
Thing is, only certain people know so we should stop guessing. There are a million choices.
That's for sure, it would be a shitstorm if he did. Even if we won, the focus would be on Fitz playing and it would be a distraction and bad PR move. Let alone the precendent.
Maybe he doesn't play the first half of any non-conference game? Maybe he doesn't start all season, but plays in every game? Maybe it's a 1 game suspension? Maybe it's 2.
Thing is, only certain people know so we should stop guessing. There are a million choices.
It is not the coach's job to determine the legal defintion of what happened. That is the legal system's job, and the fact that Fitz was not convicted of DWI is important. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be suspended or that he should be. I'm just saying that Hoke is not the one to say, "This is what he did." In a legal matter, it is the legal system that says, "This is what he did."
My perspective is that the downgrading of the action is very significant. I think Fitz doesn't start but plays against Bama. And I think it would be a good call, since he did not commit DWI.
I dont think the ruling is significant because im 100% sure hoke sat down with fitz and they talked about exactly what happened. Its not like we need a legal system to tell us what is right and wrong.
I dont know whats going to happen, but i doubt he will play. that being said, ide be ok with him playing because i trust Hoke.
There's a big difference between acting like a total dumbass in an isolated incident and being a total dumbass.
ever gets a DUI! I'm sure it's happened many times. Glass houses my friends. If Fitz plays, who of you will be pissed off after Michigan wins?! No one. An above poster was correct, we are not the SEC. But we are playing the SEC. Something to keep in mind. I don't see a problem with Fitz playing. He's paid a price than none of us know anything about so all the judge Judy's out there should shut up. If he sits, he sits. If he plays you'll get over it.
This is a fascinating concept that I had never thought of... sure Hoke should sit him, BUT, we're playing the SEC, and the SEC wouldn't sit him, so let's be consistent with our current competition. Upvote!
Seriously? Maybe we should oversign for a few years, too! Morals be damned, if we're playing against someone who does bad things we should do them too! We criticize the SEC so much around here because Michigan is generally held to a higher standard, that's the way it should be.
Why stop there? Let's get into the NFL free agent market and get ourselves Aaron Rodgers and Calvin for next year! It's not like the SEC doesn't pay their players already!
I should have included my "/s"...
I guess pissed off is the wrong word for it, but if we win and Fitz plays, I'll feel a little dirty. I'm sure he's done a lot over the summer but for us to keep our clean image and reputation up he should sit.
What if this had happened back in January? Would you still sit him or would he have served his penalty during those months? And how long does it take to work off that mistake? Will he be benched because this was a recent mistake? Sitting a game is not the only penalty, that's my point.
Also, I appreciate the snark and sarcasm. For the record, I do have an advanced degree from U of M... I have a LOT of pride in that accomplishment and I do feel that we as UM students and grads have a higher standard to uphold. I just don't necessarily agree with you all about sitting Fitz. Whatever Coach Hoke decides is the right choice in my opinion.
As for MilkSteak, a shower will make you clean again after the victory in Dallas. :0)
That definitely changes things for me for some odd reason. If he had gotten a DUI back then I probably wouldn't have a problem with Hoke playing him. I think it happening so close to the game has brought a lot of negative attention to the program so the only way to mitigate this is to suspend him for a few games.
I know it's not the only penalty, but it is the only visible penalty, and visibility is important in a time when the team is in the headlines for the wrong reasons.
I wasn't trying to be snarky/sarcastic, I see your side of the issue but I have to respectfully disagree. After that victory I will indeed be taking a champagne shower.
Dude the football program in on probation right now....it may be one of the stupidest reasons in the history of the world but sorry we dont have a "clean" image at this point.
Whether Fitz plays or not it wont bother me one way or another. Hoke will do the right thing in his mind and as long as he can go to sleep at night that is all that matters.
I will get behind Hoke's decision either way on this one. But it bothers me how everyone is so quick to be judge, jury, and executioner. I really don't think it will be a huge difference if Fitz is not playing. I think Rawls will stand in quite well.
Yeah I guess we are on probation, but most people (myself included) totally forget about this until reminded. Nobody in the country views us as a "dirty" program.
And yes, whatever Hoke decides is what he's going to decide. Our opinions don't matter but it's fun to debate.
Put me down on the pissed off column. This is just a game. As an alum, I care about the reputation of the university FAR MORE than any single game, even a big-time game like this one.
Pretty sure a member on this board posted something a few months ago asking for advice because he had received a DUI
He's been suspended from the Alabama Liveblog.
I also pray for your family and that you don't have to feel the pain of losing a loved one to someone driving under the influence.
It doesn't make it right just because plenty of people do it and don't get into accidents or harm others. It also doesn't make it right because others have done it.
It's not the same as driving without a seatbelt, in that case, you're most likely going to hurt yourself.
But driving under the influence can KILL someone, and most likely its not the driver.
This is that Penn State mindset that we HAVE to get rid of.
Fact: If Fitz killed someone, the tone on this whole thread would be completely different. Why should it come to that? Why does it have to come to a man molesting children before someone at Penn St. spoke up about the toxic culture at that university (and that person had traction)?
"...driving under the influence can KILL someone..." So can driving NOT under the influence. I am not trying to be insensitive about the issue, but DUI is a victimless crime. Is it dangerous? Yes. But what if Fitz were arrested for going 110mph down I-95? Speeding is the cause of thousands of deaths a year, should kid stopped for speeding be suspended too?
I don't really like the, "holier than thou" tone that many people -- especially alums -- are expressing in here. Again, it's a victimless crime. Fitz didn't hurt anyone. He could have, but he could have just as easily have hurt someone while he was 100% stonecold sober.
Let Hoke do what he thinks is the best for Fitz and the Michigan football program. If he decides that is sitting him, so be it. If he decides that is playing him, so be it. This, "I'll be pissed if he plays" meme is a joke.
Just fucking stop. This is one of the dumbest things I have read on this board, and that is saying something.
The drunk driving laws in this nation have diverged from sensible reality to the point that we discuss the need to punish people for what did not happen. Fitz drove while "visibly impaired". He harmed no one. No property damage. Impairment is a scale it is not black and white. He'll pay a high price for this mistake but he did NOT kill nor injure anyone. As far as we know, even though "visibly impaired" he may have still been operating his car safely. Lets stop talking about what might have happened under different circumstances and look at the actual.
The Penn State situation is utterly different. Fitz's situation has played out in the full eye of the media. Nothing has been hidden (other than the details of the internal punishment that Hoke has imposed). There is no "toxic culture" at Michigan looking the other way. You may disagree with how Hoke ultimately handles this, but it's his job to handle it and we'll all know his decision. Comparing this to Penn State is over reach and minimizes what happened there.
I have no problem if Hoke sits Fitz, I have no problem if Hoke plays Fitz. Perhaps if I had all the information that Hoke has I might make a different decision, but I am not the head coach and it is not my decision. Hoke will decide. Michigan will go on and the quality of his decision will be decided over the next few months and years.
I also pray for your family and that you don't have to feel the pain of losing a loved one to someone driving under the influence.
It doesn't make it right just because plenty of people do it and don't get into accidents or harm others. It also doesn't make it right because others have done it.
It's not the same as driving without a seatbelt, in that case, you're most likely going to hurt yourself.
But driving under the influence can KILL someone, and most likely its not the driver.
This is that Penn State mindset that we HAVE to get rid of.
Fact: If Fitz killed someone, the tone on this whole thread would be completely different. Why should it come to that? Why does it have to come to a man molesting children before someone at Penn St. spoke up about the toxic culture at that university (and that person had traction)?
Paraphrasing the Fundamental Attribution Error FTW!!!!!
The sentence for that? 12 credit hours at Michigan State
I would continue to be unahppy if Fitz played against Alabama. OWI means that you were operating the motor vehicle while impaired by a substance (SOS Link). Given the potential first offense for a OWI it's still a pretty serious charge. This is definitely not reckless or any type of "intoxicated but under .08" charge. All this shows is that Fitz avoided the .17+ BAC charges which are more severe. Sit Fitz for 'Bama and bring him back after that.
I'm pretty sure there's not a single Michigan fan that would not want him to play this Saturday despite any brush with the law. Be honest now!
All things being equal, if we're just looking from a football perspective, of course I would rather have Fitz in the line-up. But Fitz would still be our best running back even if he was an axe murderer or some sort of Bond villain, and in that case I don't think we would want him in the lineup.
I want to see him to play, but not as much as I want to see Hoke do the right thing.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I would totally want Fitz to play if he were an axe murderer or a Bond villain. Think about the implications. You're a middle linebacker, and the guy running toward you is a known axe murderer. Are you gonna tackle him? Really? He would be the best running back ever. What if he was Odd Job? He could take off his helmet, whip it at a player, and cut them in half. It would be totally bad-ass if Fitz were a Bond villain.
I mention this because I think it's a lot more fun and informative than listening to folks debate this topic. Nearly 100% or 100% of us think that drinking and driving is bad. Nearly 0% or 0% of us know what punishment Hoke has given out. And 0% of us know what Hoke will do on Saturday. And nearly 100% of us think that Hoke will do what he thinks is best for Fitz, in the long run.
More importantly, nearly 100% of us can agree that it would be intimidating as all get-out if Fitz was a known axe murderer. And 100% can agree that it would be awesome if Fitz were a Bond villain - especially if he were Odd Job.
Q.E.D.
Don't speak for me bub. This was not a mere "brush" with the law. Will Campbell had a "brush" with the law. This was drunk driving, whether you use some horse manure legalese to describe it or not. I don't want to sacrifice the Michigan name for a player's selfish and dangerous actions. We are playing the SEC, we are not the SEC.
~Herm
You are my father.
But we agree 100%. I must be getting old.
Umm, I'm one who doesn't want Fitz to play against Alabama. I don't think what he did was the end of the world, but it was stupid and he got caught. Hoke has to punish both Fitz and Clark, to set precedent for the rest of the team, and to put out a marker for what Michigan does (in relationship to MSU & Ohio, in particular.) This is Michigan, fergodsakes.
I also think the team is bigger than any one individual. This is exactly the kind of thing that eventually sunk Ohio. Prior and others thought they were above the law, and indispensable to Tressel and Ohio. This sense of entitlement and lack of consequences for actions causes all kinds of problems, and isn't real life for most of us.
Now, I wish that Fitz had never had a BAC of .12 while driving, and thus that he was playing this Saturday. But wishing that won't change the reality.
Cierre Woods, Utopu, Rees? A little part of me would be a little embarrassed if we conceded moral high ground to ND.
Now, I would give my third nut to see Fitz on the field Saturday, but I don't think we will nor do I think we should.
I will be very disappointed in Brady Hoke if Fitz plays. This is Michigan and you are held to a higher standard. I don't care about the semantics of what he was charged with/what he plead to. You can make him run the Big House stairs a thousand times but it won't match the agony of standing there in street clothes watching his team play in what would have been the biggest game of his life. And when we likely lose, he will have to live with that for the rest of his career. DUIs are not something to mess around with, and he needs to pay the price and feel it for a long time.
I agree that he should be punished..but you make it sound like he killed a child, and that he should be embarassed in front of 100,000 people. At least let him wear his jersey, if he did something worth wearing street clothes at a game, he would have been kicked off the team by now. I hope he has learned his lesson and regained Hoke's trust over the summer. We are pretty fucked if he doesn't play, and that 14 point spread might look about right in the end.
Yeah all I meant was that he should be wearing not football pads, don't have a problem with him wearing a jersey.
I agree with what another poster said, if this was UMass we wouldn't be having this conversation. The opponent doesn't change anything, or shouldn't.
be screwed if doesn't play? We have heard very good things about Rawls, I wouldn't automatically assume that he won't be able to provide anything if he plays in Fitz's place. Given how strong Alabama's run defense is I doubt which ever RB plays is going to have a huge game anyways, winning the game will most likely come down to making some plays in the passing game and the D be able to control the Alabama running game. If they do those things I think they will at least give themselves a chance to win, with or without Fitz.
Put me down in the camp that believes Fitz shouldn't play, regardless of the charge being pleaded down to an OWI. At the end of the day he was still driving drunk, a tone needs to be set that no player on the team is above the law, regardless of who the opponent is. The only reason this is even being debated so heavily is because of the opponent.
"DUIs are not something to mess around with, and he needs to pay the price and feel it for a long time."
Feel it for a long time? C'mon. The guy is going to fined, his license is going to be suspended, has to do community service, and his insurance rates are going to go up, all for a "victimless crime." He's going to feel it, don't you worry. Not to mention all the extra stairs and such that Hoke made him do.
I hope all you guys don't fall from your high horses, cuz that ground is a long way down, and it's going to hurt.
I take DUI's seriously, but I don't think that the kid deserves any more punishment than that which is going to be handed down by the Justice System. All this, "we're Michigan" "higher standard" crap, is just that, CRAP. What it really is is your own self not wanting to have to hear it from Sparty friends and such. He didn't hurt anybody. Yes, he could have, but I have a legal issue with punishing people for potential harms.
Here is how the law works in Michigan cuz im a Officer. It still counts as a OWI..is just lesser fines. Three in a lifetime is a felony. He gets a automatic 3 month suspensionon on his license. If he got popped in Oakland County he would get 30 days without question. We wont see jail in Washtenaw
I appreciate your perspective, but I don't agree that "he would get 30 days without question" in Oakland County. I know people in Oakland County who had much higher BACs, plead down to an OWVI and served zero jail time. There are certainly judges who would punish such offenders with 30 days, but I don't think it is the standard or norm across the county.
You get Judge Small, you're going to jail.
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/08/12/news/doc4e43e598266d4098796266.txt
Oakland County has a few tough judges that hammer on drunk drivers. I guess not everyone gets hammered but they are pretty tough.
But Hoke already said today's actions wouldn't affect his availability.
Plea or not, I'd bet he sits for at least a half, and probably for the whole game.
That's what I came here to say. Hoke has already said the result of this legal decision will have no bearing on his decision, I have no reason to not believe him.
I'm pretty sure he is going to sit.
Here is how the law works in Michigan cuz im a Officer. It still counts as a OWI..is just lesser fines. Three in a lifetime is a felony. He gets a automatic 3 month suspensionon on his license. If he got popped in Oakland County he would get 30 days without question. We wont see jail in Washtenaw
If I were a grammar officer, you'd definitely get 30 days in Washtenaw County.
As long as Fitz has done everything Hoke has asked, and he has I don't see the point in arbitrarily suspending him for a game. If this happened in February would you still suspend him for the opener? Or does the amount of time he has had to "prove" himself determine if he should play? If that is the case than in season DUI would be a season suspension since you are saying it takes 8+ weeks to fully prove yourself.
Someone that has thought this out a bit more than just saying, "We are Michigan and we are morally superior to everyone else." Thanks for that. I was beginning to think I was the only one.
First, a suspension would hardly be an arbitrary punishment. Second,we should realize that Hoke was going to make Fitz earn his way back onto the field, whether or not he serves a suspension.
Agreed. Suspensions are used so often because they are much bigger punishments than just having a guy run stairs. I feel like a lot of people around here are trying to rationalize playing Fitz, but if this were ND or MSU doing the same thing we would all be jumping down their throats.
Maybe the minority, but I take the stand that if a kid makes a mistake, and does everything in his power for 6-8 weeks than I have no problem with there not being a suspension. From all accounts Fitz, and Clark for that matter, have done everything Hoke has asked them to make right.
Driving while visually impaired --> Driving while blind --> Arrested for driving while blind --> ZZ Top --> Elliott Mealer could be in ZZ Top with that beard
wait... what are we talking about?
just think if we're going to be teetotalers, we also shouldn't promote drinking w/ "what r u drinking on saturday night threads, etc."
obviously, drinking "AND DRIVING" is different than drinking, but i still feel like the messages appear a little mixed; i.e., it's great to boast about drinking, but it's an unfathomable crime to drive after drinking a few....
i know i'm going to get a lot of negs for this.... but that's my 2 cents.
i, for one, am not drinking this saturday... i want to watch michigan win clear-eyed and i don't want to miss a single yard gained.
Are you serious? There's no mixed message. It's ok to drink, it's not ok to drink and drive. It's pretty simple.
i mean, i obviously understand the difference between (A) Drinking and (B) Drinking AND DRIVING.
But, if we're really being honest with ourselves, why should we (1) pat ourselves on our backs when our noble student-athletes drive while having a BAC of 0.07 (which is legal in Michigan) and (2) ridicule the sophomoric behaviors of these unworthy kids when they drive with a BAC of 0.09 (which is illegal in Michigan).
Is it because we so value the BAC thresholds that our praiseworthy state legislators have chosen for us (based on their rigorous scientific research)?
.... i know i'm being a little sarcastic, and i apologize, but if we're really frowning upon drinking (above a certain level) and driving, then let's just be honest with ourselves and say, don't drink, period.
(1) He had a BAC of .12, 50% higher than the legal limit.
(2) The limit was .10 until about 10 years ago, when they changed it to .08 based on statistics showing that the chance of getting into an accident went up significantly between .08 and 1.0, so there is a difference statistically significant difference between .07 and .09. Honestly, it was lowered to .08 because there is such a low chance that something will happen at that level and, when I heard that he blew a .08, I was ready to let it slide because he probably wouldn't have even felt it at that point. However, when I found out that the .08 was his second test at the station and he blew a .12 after getting pulled over, I decided he had to either know he was drunk or have such a high tolerance to alcohol that he couldn't tell, in which case, he needs help.
(3) It takes more than a few drinks to get to .12% BAC. At his weight, he would have had to consume ~6 standard drinks in the half hour timespan before driving to achieve that. Add one more standard drink for every hour that he was drinking. No one should be driving after a 6 pack.
(4) He needs to know what it feels like to let everyone around him down because next time, if there is a next time, he won't be getting off the hook so easily with the law or with the coach. Stonum got lots of leniency because of the coaching transition and the punishments didn't seem to get through to him. You need to make it hurt the first time around enough that he will not do it again. This is only a learning experience for him if they take the opportunity to make it one.
Based on what?
The formula used to estimate BAC. Plugging in his numbers, I came up with .12 BAC being ~5.4 standard drinks without subtracting any time. Add in another half of a standard drink and a half hour to consume them (one standard drink per hour) and you get ~6 standard drinks in a half hour.
I'm not trying to debate the science behind the thresholds (because I don't know). But, I just feel like we're getting hung up on the fact that he had one drink too much or two drinks too much, etc. I think someone who drives with a 0.07 BAC level sounds somewhat dangerous and perhaps, 30 minutes ago, he had a 0.10 BAC, etc.
In addition, as background, apparently Fitz drank VSOP Brandy (according to an ESPN article that I read) and not beer. If your 6 "drinks" math is correct (and it seems close based on a 200 lb person according to this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content), it sounds like Fitz had approximately 9 oz of brandy.
Therefore, Fitz drank slightly more than a cup (i.e., equivalent to 8 oz) of liquor and started driving.
I don't know if that's any better than drinking 6 beers, but I also don't think I would feel comfortable with someone driving after drinking half a cup of brandy (holding all else equal).
Hoke will discipline him.
His parents will discipline him.
But at the end of the day, it's up to Fitz to learn what's the right way to be an upstanding citizen and a Michigan Man!
Actually there's very little difference between the risk of crashing at .08 and .12 BAC. The .08 is an arbitrary number that makes people like MADD feel like they're stopping drunk driving (it used to be .10). The risks go up quickly at 2 beers then level off until around .125 according the NHTSA.
Yes Fitz will have to decide for himself what's right and wrong, just like everyone else. I just think it's going overboard to say since you shouldn't drink and drive then you shouldn't drink at all. It'd be like saying, since I can't fire a gun into a random group of people I can't shoot at a gun range either.
hoke said that the ruling wont change his decision and that you have to make the decision based on the program and not this team. cant find the quotes right now but anyway, i doubt he will play.
It's not like he missed the Stonum drama the last 2 years. He knew what he was doing.
Operating while visibly impaired is usually what OWI's get plead down to. It isn't much of a break at all. It is a drunk driving no matter how you slice it. It allows him to get a restricted license quicker and is 4 points instead of 6 on his drivers license. if he picks up a second one, the visibly impaired constitues a prior conviction which subjects him to enhanced penalties.
In my opinion, Hoke has to sit him down this week.
What seems to be the officer, problem?
Possibly my favorite line from south park....ever!
I'm so mad at Fitz for not only doing an incredibly stupid thing endagering his own life and the lives of others but for putting us in this endless position of will he play / will he not play / should he play / debate.
It was fun to watch other programs go through this. Old Purple face down in South Bend released a statement last summer that Michael Floyd had paid the price for multiple DUI's and then he went on to play in every single game. Dantonio will allow all players to go straight from the jail cell to the playing field. Les Miles didn't suspend any of the several key players last year for their big opener against Oregon after they were in a huge bar brawl the previous week. He then made them sit out the following game against Northwestern State.
I'd like to think we're above those kinds of coaches when it comes to ethics. So if (big if) Fitz sees any playing time against Bama, I'm guessing he won't start the first half. It's either that or nothing. But I'm leaning more towards nothing.
Just for the sake of argument, what makes Michigan "above" the schools you've named? During my time at Michigan I did not see football players behaving in ways that exemplified being above much at all. I love Michigan football, but the idea that Michigan is somehow "above" any ill-defined notion of elevated civic decorum is, in my opinion, erroneous.
No school's players are above acting stupid. I'd just like it if we were above other programs when it comes to disciplining players that do something incredibly stupid. That's all.
It's the Michigan Man thing that people always harp on about. The University prides itself on molding the young men on the football team into not only better athletes, but better people as well. Some of the schools listed above do not hold their teams to the same standards.
That sounds great, but good look winning a national title.
I don't think he should miss a snap. If he would have committed the crime during the season then he should miss a game or two. This happened during his summer break. Besides, there are other ways of punishing him.
He sits the first half
After reading Hoke's comments I think he has to sit him for the entire game. Sitting him for a half would be gutless, worse than just starting him. Either he sits or plays, serve one master or the other.
I think the legal system's punishment is enough for Fitz, but I do think that Brady Hoke needs to sit him for at least a series for violating "team rules."
I know that any form of drunk driving is considered a terrible crime right now because of the potential for injury, but shoulda, woulda, and coulda don't apply here. The bottom line is that nobody was hurt, the legal system will make him pay, and he has had to jump through a lot of hoops to get back on the team.
AFAIC, he doesn't need any more punishment than a symbolic gesture to promote team discipline and send a message to the public. A series or a quarter would be enough to do that.
If there was a second offense, though, I think a year off would be appropriate, because it would then be a major discipline problem as opposed to someone not realizing he was too drunk to pass a BAL test.
This makes sense to me. It's a nod to the fact that he screwed up, but sitting the entire game doesn't seem justified. If he screws up again to this degree, then by all means make him sit a year or worse. However, as you and others have indicated, this seems more like a one time screw up and he paid his dues by doing whatever he’s being doing since the incident. Additionally, I don’t think the football program will be chastised for not suspending him for a game, legally he didn’t even get a DUI. The belief that Michigan players must be held to a higher standard is being over played here in my opinion.
the internet will burn down.
that concerns more than just one player:
Mattison presser: http://www.mgoblue.com/allaccess/?media=330844
Borges Presser: http://www.mgoblue.com/allaccess/?media=330868
I think he should sit, but I'm not going to consider Hoke "nutless" or burn my Michigan paraphernalia if he plays. I agree that you need to send a message, but to who? Other players within the program or everyone else? With the Fort on lockdown, we have no idea what punishment they may have received. I was young and stupid and drove drunk twice. Once because, in my 22 year old mind, I had no other choice. I have no excuse for the other (for either). I was lucky not to get caught, and I don't really even drink anymore (I don't consider "having a drink" and "drinking" to be the same thing). Coach Hoke will do the right thing, even if some of us don't agree on what that is.
Median here is sit Fitz for the first half. He is still being punished game time, but doesn't lose out on all 4 quarters. This is a first time offender and the situation seemed pretty tame, ie he was cooperative with the Police and everyone else. Lord knows Hoke & Co. have made him pay dearly during practices, with possible early morning running sessions up and down the bleachers in the Big House (I believe Arrington had to do something similar a few years back). As far as Frank Clark is concerned, he should definitely sit the whole game. Hoke still makes a strong point to his players and appeases the masses, without doing too much and overreacting to make a statement and appease the Drew Sharps of the world. Not saying he would make a decisoin based on D.S., but you get my point.
Can't people have rational differing opinions on this? I'm personally of the opinion that a college kid getting a DUI or an MIP or something of that sort for the first time doesn't need to be suspended. If it's a second offense and appears to be a course of conduct or if it's a first-time offense involving violence, then yes, absolutely. However, a DUI or an MIP can often be characterized as a mistake. One that will be dealt with by law enforcement officials and the judicial system. I get that some programs do consider it suspension worthy but does that mean that Hoke has to adopt their take? He just kicked Darryl Stonum off the team for repeating similar conduct. I don't think if he starts Fitz that he's capitulated to the "FOOTBALL OVER ALL ELSE" frenzy. It's not a disgrace to the University if he starts Fitz. Maybe you think he should be suspended, which is a reasonable opinion, but I don't, and I think anyone who embraces my viewpoint shouldn't be colored as someone willing to just chuck away all the University stands for in order to get football wins.
but lumping in MIPs with DUIs unreasonably minimizes what Fitz did, at least in my book.
I'm not saying the offenses are equal, but they're offenses which are not committed with malice towards another human being - like say, beating up a bunch of dudes or hitting your girlfriend.
Because it punishes the whole team is exactly why it is going to happen. How often have we heard Coach talk about accountability to your teammates? This is how you teach that lesson.
Gene Wojciechowski has a column up at the WWL on the start of the season. Halfway through the column, he has a section about Casey Pachall, the starting quarterback at TCU.
Pachall is a talented QB, setting records in completions, percentage, and yards. However, Wojciechowski writes,
a recent TCU360.com report revealed that Pachall tested positive for marijuana use in February and that he also told police he had used cocaine and Ecstasy. TCU coach Gary Patterson was so outraged by the behavior that he suspended Pachall for zero games.
Here is the key sentence:
Given how other programs have dealt with misbehaving players, TCU's leniency seems either naive or conveniently calculated.
Wojciechowski then goes through what other programs did:
According to TCU, Pachall's situation was handled "internally," which included drug and alcohol counseling and possibly drug testing.
Wojciechowski's conclusion?
There's a perception TCU was soft on Pachall after a failed drug test . . . the program's own fault.
If Hoke does not sit Fitz the entire Alabama game, the perception will be that Michigan is soft on drugs, alcohol, and crime. I detest Drew Sharp, but he said much the same thing in a different way. For the sake of the program, it just isn't worth playing Toussaint.
I understand your point and initially that was my first conclusion in the matter, but the more I thought about it, what impact does the perception of media types (re: "tough on crime" attitude of programs) actually have on the programs? If we don't believe he should be suspended because he doesn't deserve it, do we really need to capitulate just because Drew Sharp or Wojo tells me that Michigan will now be perceived as soft on crime? Particularly when there's directly contradicting evidence in the form of Darryl Stonum, a player who would be unbelievably instrumental on this year's team.
Look at all the damage the perceived/real moral issues surrounding Saban's stance on oversigning and Dantonio's stance on discipline have caused.
I heavily dislike the cries from the "there needs to be a public example" crowd. It's as if no matter what Toussaint does in private, it will never fulfill some moral obligation to the public that a suspension will.
I once thought this way...in 2007. Now? After the Chris L. Rucker stuff and Glenn Winston and Tatgate...NO ONE CARES now except a few Michigan fans wringing their fists from ivory towers.
Screw public opinion. I'm not sure any fanbase in the country is as hard on its football program as Michigan.
Drug possession and abuse, multiple offenses, along with illegal gun possession...more serious than a DWI involving a person of legal drinking age, that is pled down.
As usual, I disagree with Sharp... he says the longer it goes, the more like Touissant plays.
I think, however, that the longer it goes, the less likely he plays..... at the very least, Hoke will have both of them dress but not play a single play, a scarlet letter of sorts.... but the most likely is that they don't travel with team, nor play.
If they're not playing, you really think Hoke would let them travel let alone dress? Over 2 younger guys or walk-ons that busted their ass in camp and deserve it more?
You are probably right
Anyone who agrees with Drew Sharp needs their head examined.
The worst thing Hoke could do is to let these "haters" or the media make him deviate from a fair solution. IMO, a moral person does what he thinks is right, not what others think.
It's simple. Fitz should not and will not play. Let the legend of Thomas Rawls be born behind, what I see as, a very underrated O-line at his point. Pound Rawls right up there crimson asses. Sorry, THEIR. I know the rules around here. Just a little slip.
Why didn't fitz contact the firm at the top of mgoblog to "avoid a DUI conviction" and secondly, why should the rest of the team, those that didn't get caught drinking and driving, have to suffer because fitz screwed up? Any punishment should be solely for fitz, not the entire team. Make him speak to hs kids about drinking and driving. Make him attend Survivors Speakout, but to say he has to miss a game to be punished is ridiculous. Should he decide to go pro after this season, missing 1 game isn't going to teach him anything.
Letting your teammates down is probably the biggest punishment you could ever receive. Is running extra sprints and waking up early ever going to resonate as loud as letting down your entire team. My senior year of football our starting linebacker got a DUI and missed four games. I'll never forget how bad he felt about letting everyone down, he could hardly look any of us in the eye.
That is a reasonable argument for suspension. So, guess the remaining question is; what are the detailed facts of the case and what punishment fits the crime.
I swear I hit the button once.
you let your team down w/ that double post... j/k
man i feel bad for some of your kids..they better never mess up....since dad was so perfect
The kid made a mistake. Did the pellet gun he had on him come up at all? That was the most disappointing thing about all of this, that he was carrying a pellet gun that had been modified to look like a real gun.
He also had a previous DWLS, so I hope that doesn't mean jail time.
Kids make mistakes, but I think Hoke needs to sit him for at least 1 game.
Id be shocked if he's on the field...Hoke's whole point about "this is Michigan" goes deeper than wins and losses and recruiting. Based off the tolerance for Stonum, I'd say we won't see Fitz in Dallas. This is Michigan and if the past is any indicator, he will be suspended.
Hoke, by playing the wait-and-see game, has worsened the situation. He's made it bigger. Either way, he should have made a call on this already and put it in the past. Why keep it alive like this? Now, if plays Fitz, it will look especially bad. Which is why I'm guessing he's not playing him.
Because Fitz told him that he wasn't drunk when he got stopped by the checkpoint and barely blew over the limit, which is what it seemed like from day 1.
None of us knows what really happened, but the police did report that FItz was well-behaved and extremely polite. That is not a common description of a completely wasted drunk.
Also, when most imperfect medical tests--like the breathalyzer---are done, some people will inevitably be miscategorized (eg called drunk when they are sober).
To illustrate, suppose a test correctly detects 99% of real drunks (True positive (TP) rate=.99. However, when the person is not really drunk, it calls them drunk 20% of the time (False positive (FP) rate=.2. Suppose further that 30% of people who are pullled over and tested really are drunk, but 70% are not. Then, a positive test for drunk driving among 99 people will correctly identify 66 true drunks but falsely accuse 33 people who are not drunk.
Clearly, the results could be less extreme for the breathalzyer. But there would still be a substantial percentage of falsely accused. One would then need to rely on other behavioral evidence of intoxication, and only the courts can really judge the quality of such evidence.
Calculation
FP rate .2
TP .99 rate.
Prior chance of being drunk = .3 Prior Odds of being drunk = .3/.7
Posterior Odds of being drunk= Prior Odds x .TPrate /FP rate = .3/.7 x .99/.2 = about 2: 1
But that means that among 99 people tested, 66 real drunks will be found but 33 will be falsely called drunk
(this purely hypothetical example assumes that someone actually verifies the drunk-sober status of those not pulled over by police and it is based on a simplifying assumption of conditional independence. Less extreme but still illustrative results would be produced by relaxing this assumption).
Count me among the disappointed if Fitz or Clark plays. If this happened at any other school, many of the fans on this board would be skewering the coach and the football program.
(as occured with my last post)
You ask a reasonable question. My answer: The problem is that none of us--except perhaps Fitz, his lawyer and his coach--know exactly what happened. While a truly intoxicated person clearly deserves serious punishment, the determination of intoxication is not always so clear. To take an extreme example, would you not feel unjustly accused of drunk driving if you had a half of a beer, then narrowly avoided an accident, got pulled over, and falsely test positive on a breath test (for any of the reasons cited above)?
I am not saying that this actually happened to Fitz (in fact, I doubt it). I only point out that there can be a grey zone between being completely alcholol free and completely inebriated. Just where Fitz stood in that grey zone---while certainly subject to misrepresentation by a dishonest, self-serving coach--- could rightly have a bearing on the punishment that an honest coach gives him.
We know exactly how drunk he was. He blew a .12. That's how you gauge it.
a vague situation here. It's not like this is the Furman case, where alot of the specific facts were were in question. He drove drunk, plain and simple.
but it is not. Far from it. See my posts above and below this for further illustrations.
Is the primary evidence re: Fitz's intoxication a breath test? If so, the number of possible sources of error in that test is breathtaking: eg differences in individual breathing patterns and physiology, conditions such as gingivitis, esophageal reflux, activities such as kissing, use of breath spray or mouthwash, as well as variations in the time of alcohol consumption and a multitude of possible test errors.* (indeed, if he drank brandy, as he says he did, then I wonder if this more aromatic substance would be more likely to yield false positive test results. I also wonder if the lower breathing rate of athletes does the opposite of hyperventilation and falsely increases apparent alcohol in the breath tests).
In any case, Fitz's plea down to a lesser sentence may have arisen because the police could not definitively prove that he had an illegally high blood alcohol concentration. Perhaps the "visible evidence of impairment" acknowldged in Fitz's plea was based on other, subjective evidence, such as police impressions of his speech, eye movements, finger-to-nose testing, etc.--but these impressions too can be subjective and prone to error.
I raise these questions merely to illustrate how one could wrongly assume that a breath test is definitive proof of a DUI. It is not. However, I do not in any way justify Fitz's apparent poor judgment. IMO, he does deserve some punishment for himself. At the same time, though, the team itself really does not deserve punishment, and to keep him out of the whole Ala game would reduce their chances of victory.
So, what would be fair? I have an admittedly unconventional suggestion: Suspend Fitz not for a single game but for 1 1/2 games. the latter would include the first half of each of the next 3 games (Ala, Air Force, and UMass). That would not punish the entire team by keeping him out of the whole Ala game. Yet for Fitz, himself, it would be a longer suspension and demotion than than would a single game (eg for Ala only). It would also give his replacements longer to challenge his starting status.
so I can enjoy some of the reactions. With the strength of conviction and moral superiority some of you seem to have, I'll be expecting to see you in green next year.
Your statement does not follow. You have not pointed out what statements by posters in this thread illustrate an undue "strength of conviction" or "moral superiority".
Maybe you are right, but I suspect that most of us are genuinely conflicted about what to do.
or restore it.
Thanks.
It's not...And I tried to help (restore).
You're of the minority, in a way, in your stance (though you're definitely not alone) and you're bringing up decent arguments and playing devils advocate in a geniune and courteous manner...at times, around here that naturally means you're going to get negged, I guess.
Think we are crazy because we think he might get suspended. Down here, that deserves just your typical slap on the wrist.
If he were a music major, would he be suspended from playing in concerts? If he were an art major, would he not be in the next exhibit? If he were an english major, no writing for a month? Face it, these kids major in football, and I personally don't really care what they do outside of that.
Good point because if a regular college kid gets busted on a OWVI, he pays his fines, gets his restricted license and goes about his business. It's insanely stupid to drive drunk, but blowing .12 is a lot different than blowing a .21.
The idea that Fitz playing would be morally reprehensible seems to be based on the concept that members of the football team are ambassadors to the entire university (full disclosure: I did not attend) and therefore held to a higher standard than the rest of the student body.
Which means the question becomes: Should they be expected to behave like students or athletes?
I am aa little late to the party, but this feels like one of those decisions that gets him on the field. He'll do the community service, but I'd be shocked if he saw any jail time. Figure he'll be playing on Saturday.
It's up to the Coach if he will play any portions of this game. If it is a blow out by halftime, one way or the other, Hoke will probably keep him out. Also, you never know what the punishment game is? May be he will sit out in a future game?
that is televising the Michigan Alabama game.
SpartanSam (Speaking in incoherent tones known to every bartender): "How dare Hoke put him in? Dantonio would never do that.”
MichiganMike: “That’s because all his team are repeat offenders. They’d still be in jail.”
BuckeyeBob (his words slurring together almost incomprehensibly).: “I don’t care whatcha say….He blew a .12….guilty of drunk driving.”
MichiganMike: “You already said that.”
BuckeyeBob: Well, I’ll say it again (raising his voice so that it is now almost audible in Columbus): “Guilty Guilty Guilty,”
MichiganMike: “Thanks for clearing that up.”
Barely able to lift his wobbly head from the bar, SpartanSam says to Buckeye Bob, . “Well, let’s get the hell get out of this goddamn state. Let’s find a real f-ing sports bar. A place where there aren’t all these sonovabiches who don’t give a damn about drunk driving.”
BuckeyeBob, ,staggering to keep his balance, replies:….”Okay. . I’ll drive.”
Good, give him the Michael Floyd treatment and move on.
To tardily give my input. 1. I don't care, either way, what happens. I have no dog in this fight (figuratively speaking) and what Hoke decides, it'll be in a justified manner. 2. I do think he will play. Plain and simple.
What ails me is the worriyng over the notion of, "what this will make 'us' look like"; whoever the hell "us" is. Yes, I know "us" is to mean us and you all, the alums, fans, Universty members, etc.. If Hoke allows Touissaint to play in ths Alabama game, there are many of you worrying how this will make the University look, I guess. To that I say, Who gives a sh*t?! You're worried about what other fans will say, what other message board geeks are going to say, what your Ohio and Sparty pals are going to say, etc.. Again, I say, who cares!? There's this hubris amongst fans these days that we're so protective of "our teams" and we put these "teams", and to some degree the players, on these pedestals and worship them; and when something "bad" happens to them our hubris is outed, to defend and shoot down naysayers.
Has something someone said or has the reputation of a collegiate sporting team you have a rooting interest in, ever affected your life in a real way? I would guess no for the vast majority of fans; if you answer yes, other issues are at stake. Seek help.
Let Hoke make the decision. Cut the "I will be dissapointed if he plays". The University of Michigan and all of it's members are a classy institution. This little (not little on a micro level or to be taken lightly, but in the scheme of things involving the University) incident has no bearing on that, AT ALL! Don't let the jackasses of the world force you or worry you to think otherwise. It's all talk, sports talk, and most sports talk is a bunch of time-killing; nothing significant nor important in the scheme of things. If Fitz plays, he'll more than likely have earned it and educated himself on some life lessons while doing so (we can all hope, anyways).
