Report: Suns' P.J. Tucker arrested for 'super extreme DUI

[Revived]

Excellent post detailing everything from a poster on a different forum

Here's a chart that sums things up:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/ajk5065/blo ... itled1.png

Tucker's BAC was measured at 0.22. His listed playing weight is 224 lb. So look at the column for 220. A BAC that high most likely points to more than 10 drinks. If an interval of time of more than an hour elapsed before he was tested, and he was still that high, then he must have drunk even more.

Now look at the blue/yellow/red boxes on the left. Read the description for .16-.19. "Nausea, memory loss, could pass out." Tucker was in a worse category than that! Read .20-.24, the range he was in. "Disorientation, need help to stand/walk, vomiting likely."

Now, ask yourselves again: Is getting behind the wheel in that condition really just a "mistake"?

[aIvin adams]

Excellent post detailing everything from a poster on a different forum

Here's a chart that sums things up:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/ajk5065/blo ... itled1.png

Tucker's BAC was measured at 0.22. His listed playing weight is 224 lb. So look at the column for 220. A BAC that high most likely points to more than 10 drinks. If an interval of time of more than an hour elapsed before he was tested, and he was still that high, then he must have drunk even more.

Now look at the blue/yellow/red boxes on the left. Read the description for .16-.19. "Nausea, memory loss, could pass out." Tucker was in a worse category than that! Read .20-.24, the range he was in. "Disorientation, need help to stand/walk, vomiting likely."

Now, ask yourselves again: Is getting behind the wheel in that condition really just a "mistake"?

How many times have you gotten drunk?

I'm not glorifying getting drunk, or at least I don't mean to. I'm just wondering where yer coming from here.

[aIvin adams]

How so? We could have got him for cheaper. This is the NBA, its all about business, nothing else.

And if they don't have any responsibility then why did announce it? Why do teams announce it when their player gets in trouble and why do teams give public statements on the matter if they have no responsibility to inform the fans about it?

I asked FoReal this same question couple pages back and he replied to the post but didn't answer the question.

I'll give you an example that makes sense to me and then you tell me how being a pro basketball player is different.

I work for a commercial real estate firm. If I got a DUI, my company has no incentive to announce anything about it. Why would they? It hurts my brand. It hurts their brand. It's unnecessary. It doesn't accomplish anything. If we decided that it was in the best interest of the company and myself, we would release a statement.

Tucker's situation: that's exactly what happened. They didn't announce it. It wouldn't have accomplished anything. They release a well thought out statement where Tucker became an example, and committed to being a better person - now we're worried about why we didn't know about this? We didn't need to. It didn't involve us and our opinion on it doesn't matter. At all.

You argue that it would have driven his market value down - I'd argue that it's immoral to use someone's personal life against them that way. It's a slippery slope. Basketball-related issues? Injuries? Performance? Fights with teammates? Issues with coaches? Sure.

Religion? Addictions? Sexual Preferences? Family Issues? Those should be kept out of the professional sphere entirely, imho, and they definitely shouldn't be used to "kill his value".

But that's just my opinion.

Business doesn't have to be that way.

Its only immoral if you are doing it for something that is legal. For example, if Tucker was gay then sure keep that private, the fans and the public don't need to know that. If Tucker had a recent death in his family, again, keep it private cause its something that should kept to themselves.

However when a player commits a crime, we need to know about it. These athletes have youngsters looking at them as role models. They don't just get paid millions of dollars to play basketball in the day and commit crimes at night. They are paid to act responsbily on and off the court.

The NBA players are representing the NBA at ALL TIMES. Even in the off season.

And again, you just like Fo-Real are avoiding my question. Why do other teams not hide matters like this then?

Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release the info about Beasley being caught with weed? Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release info about J-Rich's DUI back then?

Why is it only immoral to leak Tucker being an idiot?

What the ****...

[RunDogGun]

How does he not understand this?

It's simple, it wasn't our position to leak information about a FA. It could drive his salary down, and thus it would be a conflict of interest, since we wanted to sign him. It has nothing to do with the act, or the severity of what Tucker did. Morally, the team shouldn't leak information to drive down a player's value.

[Zelaznyrules]

How so? We could have got him for cheaper. This is the NBA, its all about business, nothing else.

And if they don't have any responsibility then why did announce it? Why do teams announce it when their player gets in trouble and why do teams give public statements on the matter if they have no responsibility to inform the fans about it?

I asked FoReal this same question couple pages back and he replied to the post but didn't answer the question.

I'll give you an example that makes sense to me and then you tell me how being a pro basketball player is different.

I work for a commercial real estate firm. If I got a DUI, my company has no incentive to announce anything about it. Why would they? It hurts my brand. It hurts their brand. It's unnecessary. It doesn't accomplish anything. If we decided that it was in the best interest of the company and myself, we would release a statement.

Tucker's situation: that's exactly what happened. They didn't announce it. It wouldn't have accomplished anything. They release a well thought out statement where Tucker became an example, and committed to being a better person - now we're worried about why we didn't know about this? We didn't need to. It didn't involve us and our opinion on it doesn't matter. At all.

You argue that it would have driven his market value down - I'd argue that it's immoral to use someone's personal life against them that way. It's a slippery slope. Basketball-related issues? Injuries? Performance? Fights with teammates? Issues with coaches? Sure.

Religion? Addictions? Sexual Preferences? Family Issues? Those should be kept out of the professional sphere entirely, imho, and they definitely shouldn't be used to "kill his value".

But that's just my opinion.

Business doesn't have to be that way.

Its only immoral if you are doing it for something that is legal. For example, if Tucker was gay then sure keep that private, the fans and the public don't need to know that. If Tucker had a recent death in his family, again, keep it private cause its something that should kept to themselves.

However when a player commits a crime, we need to know about it. These athletes have youngsters looking at them as role models. They don't just get paid millions of dollars to play basketball in the day and commit crimes at night. They are paid to act responsbily on and off the court.

The NBA players are representing the NBA at ALL TIMES. Even in the off season.

And again, you just like Fo-Real are avoiding my question. Why do other teams not hide matters like this then?

Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release the info about Beasley being caught with weed? Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release info about J-Rich's DUI back then?

Why is it only immoral to leak Tucker being an idiot?

So you're saying that being gay is "immoral"? Am I reading you right? Forget that, I'm pretty fair at reading comprehension - I know I'm reading you right. Are you writing you right?

[aIvin adams]

No, he's saying that being gay is legal, and so it would not be immoral for the suns to 'cover that up.'

I think.

SF88, I just don't think the team was trying to cover anything up. Maybe I could see yer criticism as fair if PJ signed with another team for $6M/yr and they would have only paid 5M/yr if they had known about his DUI. But in this case nobody was deceived. Odd to say the suns acted fraudulently when nobody was defrauded..

[Revived]

I'll give you an example that makes sense to me and then you tell me how being a pro basketball player is different.

I work for a commercial real estate firm. If I got a DUI, my company has no incentive to announce anything about it. Why would they? It hurts my brand. It hurts their brand. It's unnecessary. It doesn't accomplish anything. If we decided that it was in the best interest of the company and myself, we would release a statement.

Tucker's situation: that's exactly what happened. They didn't announce it. It wouldn't have accomplished anything. They release a well thought out statement where Tucker became an example, and committed to being a better person - now we're worried about why we didn't know about this? We didn't need to. It didn't involve us and our opinion on it doesn't matter. At all.

You argue that it would have driven his market value down - I'd argue that it's immoral to use someone's personal life against them that way. It's a slippery slope. Basketball-related issues? Injuries? Performance? Fights with teammates? Issues with coaches? Sure.

Religion? Addictions? Sexual Preferences? Family Issues? Those should be kept out of the professional sphere entirely, imho, and they definitely shouldn't be used to "kill his value".

But that's just my opinion.

Business doesn't have to be that way.

Its only immoral if you are doing it for something that is legal. For example, if Tucker was gay then sure keep that private, the fans and the public don't need to know that. If Tucker had a recent death in his family, again, keep it private cause its something that should kept to themselves.

However when a player commits a crime, we need to know about it. These athletes have youngsters looking at them as role models. They don't just get paid millions of dollars to play basketball in the day and commit crimes at night. They are paid to act responsbily on and off the court.

The NBA players are representing the NBA at ALL TIMES. Even in the off season.

And again, you just like Fo-Real are avoiding my question. Why do other teams not hide matters like this then?

Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release the info about Beasley being caught with weed? Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release info about J-Rich's DUI back then?

Why is it only immoral to leak Tucker being an idiot?

So you're saying that being gay is "immoral"? Am I reading you right? Forget that, I'm pretty fair at reading comprehension - I know I'm reading you right. Are you writing you right?

No you aren't. I said leaking out that one of your players is gay is immoral. Where as leaking out that your player committed a crime isn't.

[Zelaznyrules]

Its only immoral if you are doing it for something that is legal. For example, if Tucker was gay then sure keep that private, the fans and the public don't need to know that. If Tucker had a recent death in his family, again, keep it private cause its something that should kept to themselves.

However when a player commits a crime, we need to know about it. These athletes have youngsters looking at them as role models. They don't just get paid millions of dollars to play basketball in the day and commit crimes at night. They are paid to act responsbily on and off the court.

The NBA players are representing the NBA at ALL TIMES. Even in the off season.

And again, you just like Fo-Real are avoiding my question. Why do other teams not hide matters like this then?

Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release the info about Beasley being caught with weed? Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release info about J-Rich's DUI back then?

Why is it only immoral to leak Tucker being an idiot?

So you're saying that being gay is "immoral"? Am I reading you right? Forget that, I'm pretty fair at reading comprehension - I know I'm reading you right. Are you writing you right?

No you aren't. I said leaking out that one of your players is gay is immoral. Where as leaking out that your player committed a crime isn't.

Well I'll be damned, you're right. So much for my vaunted reading comprehension.

[Sun Scorched]

Its only immoral if you are doing it for something that is legal. For example, if Tucker was gay then sure keep that private, the fans and the public don't need to know that. If Tucker had a recent death in his family, again, keep it private cause its something that should kept to themselves.

However when a player commits a crime, we need to know about it. These athletes have youngsters looking at them as role models. They don't just get paid millions of dollars to play basketball in the day and commit crimes at night. They are paid to act responsbily on and off the court.

The NBA players are representing the NBA at ALL TIMES. Even in the off season.

And again, you just like Fo-Real are avoiding my question. Why do other teams not hide matters like this then?

Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release the info about Beasley being caught with weed? Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release info about J-Rich's DUI back then?

Why is it only immoral to leak Tucker being an idiot?

I'll answer this honestly.

I'm sure I don't know whether or not other teams are or are not "covering" things up - things that could detrimentally impact players under contract or not with their organization.

I'm also sure you don't know either.

So asking me why other franchises aren't (or are) implies that you know they aren't. You can't make that implication, but it's besides the point.

Someone else said it better than I did and far more succinctly. It would have been a conflict of interest to release that information, immoral or not, which is a big **** deal in the professional world. People can and do sure for a ton of money in situations like that.

[AtheJ415]

DUI = victimless crime.... unless others experience personal or property damage.

The whole anti drunk driving campaign has been justifiably beat down onto society

the first description undermines the idea of 'recklessness.' i agree with the second quote.

the gravity of this particularcrime shouldn't depend much on whethwer someone gets hurt. it's the same act either way-- a person who drives under the influence has consciously decided to ignore the foreseeable violent consequences which often result from DUI.

that's the whole point of the social disapprobation. we don't want to wait until someone kills someone else before we punish them. because it's a foreseeable consequence.

let's say 100 incidents of DUI results in 3 deaths. it doesn't make sense to blame three drivers for manslaughter and tell the other 97, 'eh at least you didn't kill somebody.' it's better to condemn all 100 incidents for some similar fraction of culpability, if that makes sense.

the last thing we want to do is suggest that someone who doesn't crash their car when they drink drive has somehow done something better than someone who does crash their car. that's the kindo f myth that gets into yer head when you want to drink drive and you remember that, 'hey i'm a pretty good driver.'

I don't disagree with the spirit of what you're saying, but not all DUIs are created equal. Typically, a DUI is a person who has no record and would otherwise be considered an upstanding citizen who got caught and didn't intend to break the law. Most drive assuming they are under the limit because they think you have to be drunk to be over the limit because people call it drunk driving, don't realize how low the limit is because they don't know how many drinks are associated with 0.08 or whatever the state limit is. PJ's was obviously a different situation because he damn well knew he was drunk at that level, and as a society we should condemn it because it is so dangerous. But let's not pretend like driving at 0.081 is the same as at 0.222. I can't name a single person I know outside of 2 Mormons who don't drink who can honestly say they've never gotten behind a wheel after having had a drink. Bartender pours it too heavy and they've broken the law without intending to. Drink 2 drinks, know you aren't drunk, and honestly believe you are under the limit, and again you've broken the law without knowing it. Point being that it's not against the law to drink and drive. It's against the law to drive while over a limit which is measured using truly horrendous science (using mouthwash can easily put you over the limit on many breathalyzers) and is tough for people to rap their minds around in the first place and isn't checkable before you enter the car. To condemn all DUI convictions equally the way you say means we should condemn those not caught all the same. I guess what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be based on whether you hit someone or something, but it should be based on how drunk you were/how obvious it is that you knew you were breaking the law. Otherwise what you're really advocating is that the limit should be 0.0, which would actually clear up a lot of these issues and make it a lot easier to make these apples to apples comparisons.

DUIs are so prevalent in society in general today not because everyone is irresponsible, but because it's one of the few laws you can break without knowing, and it's proven with such misleading science that it's easy to get convictions upon arrest. PJ's was a different situation than most, and it's unfortunate, but he doesn't owe anyone an apology. People think PJ should be treated the same as Joe Shmo? Well, do these same posters call all those arrested/convicted each weekend and demand apologies from them?

[aIvin adams]

that's fair.

as to yer very last point, it's different bc PJ makes a living in a job that lands you on kids' posters. Just like free speech / defamation law justifies a different standard for public figures, so we as fans have different standards for PJ than for Joe Schmo.

but other than that I agree with everything you wrote. Thx for clarifying.

[JMac1]

A friend of mine is a bouncer at a club in Scottsdale; he said PJ Tucker was there drinking straight out of the bottle. He said PJ had crushed at least three bottles of hard alcohol and then left. Didn't know if he had a driver, but the bouncers joked about making sure he had one.

He might have a drinking problem.

[lilfishi22]

A friend of mine is a bouncer at a club in Scottsdale; he said PJ Tucker was there drinking straight out of the bottle. He said PJ had crushed at least three bottles of hard alcohol and then left. Didn't know if he had a driver, but the bouncers joked about making sure he had one.

He might have a drinking problem.

Well for sure it's come to light now if it hadn't before and Suns probably would've sent him to get professional help.

[JMac1]

A friend of mine is a bouncer at a club in Scottsdale; he said PJ Tucker was there drinking straight out of the bottle. He said PJ had crushed at least three bottles of hard alcohol and then left. Didn't know if he had a driver, but the bouncers joked about making sure he had one.

He might have a drinking problem.

Well for sure it's come to light now if it hadn't before and Suns probably would've sent him to get professional help.

Yea. He needs to go get help, if he isn't already.

[jcsunsfan]

I'll give you an example that makes sense to me and then you tell me how being a pro basketball player is different.

I work for a commercial real estate firm. If I got a DUI, my company has no incentive to announce anything about it. Why would they? It hurts my brand. It hurts their brand. It's unnecessary. It doesn't accomplish anything. If we decided that it was in the best interest of the company and myself, we would release a statement.

Tucker's situation: that's exactly what happened. They didn't announce it. It wouldn't have accomplished anything. They release a well thought out statement where Tucker became an example, and committed to being a better person - now we're worried about why we didn't know about this? We didn't need to. It didn't involve us and our opinion on it doesn't matter. At all.

You argue that it would have driven his market value down - I'd argue that it's immoral to use someone's personal life against them that way. It's a slippery slope. Basketball-related issues? Injuries? Performance? Fights with teammates? Issues with coaches? Sure.

Religion? Addictions? Sexual Preferences? Family Issues? Those should be kept out of the professional sphere entirely, imho, and they definitely shouldn't be used to "kill his value".

But that's just my opinion.

Business doesn't have to be that way.

Its only immoral if you are doing it for something that is legal. For example, if Tucker was gay then sure keep that private, the fans and the public don't need to know that. If Tucker had a recent death in his family, again, keep it private cause its something that should kept to themselves.

However when a player commits a crime, we need to know about it. These athletes have youngsters looking at them as role models. They don't just get paid millions of dollars to play basketball in the day and commit crimes at night. They are paid to act responsbily on and off the court.

The NBA players are representing the NBA at ALL TIMES. Even in the off season.

And again, you just like Fo-Real are avoiding my question. Why do other teams not hide matters like this then?

Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release the info about Beasley being caught with weed? Isn't it immoral for the Suns to release info about J-Rich's DUI back then?

Why is it only immoral to leak Tucker being an idiot?

So you're saying that being gay is "immoral"? Am I reading you right? Forget that, I'm pretty fair at reading comprehension - I know I'm reading you right. Are you writing you right?

Any discussion about morality on a message board is fraught with danger. Legal does not equal moral. There are plenty of things that are legal but not moral. And EVERYONE has a different standard of morality. In fact, some now think that it is immoral to think things are immoral that were considered immoral 20 years ago but not considered immoral today.

I did that on purpose.